4 ms·

The article begs an interesting question ignoring its link bating headline. Mainly is the supreme court over reaching when it comes to patent law and if so why.

by batoure 13y ago

The article begs an interesting question ignoring its link bating headline. Mainly is the supreme court over reaching when it comes to patent law and if so why. >The United States has an expert “patent court,”the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that hears every appeal from around the country in cases that arise under the country’s patent laws. From California to Florida, any patent appeal goes to the Federal Circuit. Unlike areas of the law, the Federal Circuit creates nationally uniform legal standards for patent law. One of the key reasons the Supreme Court will take a case is when lower courts disagree on a legal issue. But, with patent law’s single appellate court, no such splits arise. I get the reason why the court would want to not hear these cases based on this but I feel like it isn't clear why they would, and by that i mean a legal basis besides the obvious a philosophical wish to dismantle patent law (after an appropriate amount of googling I still have no answer) any lawyers or law-school dropouts turned programmers around who might explain this?

WildUtah 13y ago
The CAFC is less an "expert" patent court than a notoriously corrupt patent court. [0] The corruption isn't the furtively-passing sacks of cash kind but the kind where unaccountable people are put in charge of their own power and prestige and ignore the rules that place limits on their power. [1] The Supreme Court naturally feels somewhat offended when lower courts overturn their decisions. [1 again] [0] http://www.patentprogress.org/systemic-problems/how-we-got-here/ http://www.patentprogress.org/systemic-problems/how-we-got-h... [1] read the fourth paragraph from the end of this otherwise execrable article starting with "How long will it take" http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-prometheus/id=22920/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-pr...
- batoure 13y ago
  This is very cool and much better insight than the forbes article... I think it can still be summed up as "they angry" being the reason they take these cases. >One of the key reasons the Supreme Court will take a case is when lower courts disagree on a legal issue. But, with patent law’s single appellate court, no such splits arise. This was the question that I think that I was trying to understand better, if there is no ambiguity of opinion from lower courts is the only reason they take patent cases because they just happen to disagree?
- rayiner 13y ago
  People on this site have an absurd tendency to view everyone who disagrees with them "corrupt." CAFC isn't corrupt. It does have a less than diverse representation of engineering perspectives, however. My degree is in aerospace engineering, and I went to a school known for its traditional engineering programs (mechanical, chemical, aerospace, electrical). In this world, patents aren't viewed negatively the way they are in the software world. First because the capital requirements to enter the field are high, so you don't have little companies for whom a patent suit is an existential crisis. Second, because development is capital intensive. Pratt & Whitney develops new turbine blade designs, and patents them because developing them is tremendously expensive. In software, there is a huge field of things that are patentable that don't fulfill the economic rationale of patent (protecting expensive capital investment from free riding). So the attitude in software is very different. CAFC is full of people with backgrounds in traditional engineering fields. Think DuPont rather than Dropbox. They have a very different perspective, and it is neither corrupt nor invalid.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    What explains the Federal Circuit's relentless pro-patent bias? One obvious theory is what economists call "regulatory capture": the theory that over time, public officials will come to identify with the interest groups they are supposed to be supervising. The theory is usually applied to regulatory agencies in the executive branch (think FCC commissioners becoming Comcast lobbyists), but the theory seems to fit the Federal Circuit as well. Patent attorneys tend to have a pro-patent bias, and these attitudes seem to have rubbed off on Federal Circuit judges. Most obviously, a significant minority of Federal Circuit judges have been patent lawyers themselves, whereas judges on other courts almost never come from a patent law background. But beyond that, the heavy load of patent cases on the court's docket means that the judges of the Federal Circuit are constantly interacting with patent lawyers. In addition to hearing their arguments in the courtroom, they read the same patent law publications as the lawyers, hire young patent lawyers to clerk for them, and are invited to speak at events organized by the patent bar. Moreover, the prestige of the Federal Circuit itself is directly tied to the prominence of patent law in the American legal system. If the Federal Circuit had followed the stricter rules in place before the court was created, patent law might have remained a legal backwater, receiving little attention from either the legal profession or the general public. That, of course, would have made the Federal Circuit a less prestigious place to work. (From [0].) "Corrupt" doesn't seem like too strong a word to me. And yes, on top of that, they know very little about software. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appea...
bbanyc 13y ago
In this particular case the Federal Circuit failed to reach a coherent conclusion. 10 judges were on the panel and they produced 7 opinions, of which only a single paragraph was approved by a majority of the court. It's an intra-circuit split rather than the inter-circuit splits you see in other areas of law.

by batoure 13y ago

WildUtah 13y ago

The CAFC is less an "expert" patent court than a notoriously corrupt patent court. [0] The corruption isn't the furtively-passing sacks of cash kind but the kind where unaccountable people are put in charge of their own power and prestige and ignore the rules that place limits on their power. [1] The Supreme Court naturally feels somewhat offended when lower courts overturn their decisions. [1 again] [0] http://www.patentprogress.org/systemic-problems/how-we-got-here/ http://www.patentprogress.org/systemic-problems/how-we-got-h... [1] read the fourth paragraph from the end of this otherwise execrable article starting with "How long will it take" http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-prometheus/id=22920/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-pr...

batoure 13y ago
This is very cool and much better insight than the forbes article... I think it can still be summed up as "they angry" being the reason they take these cases. >One of the key reasons the Supreme Court will take a case is when lower courts disagree on a legal issue. But, with patent law’s single appellate court, no such splits arise. This was the question that I think that I was trying to understand better, if there is no ambiguity of opinion from lower courts is the only reason they take patent cases because they just happen to disagree?
rayiner 13y ago
People on this site have an absurd tendency to view everyone who disagrees with them "corrupt." CAFC isn't corrupt. It does have a less than diverse representation of engineering perspectives, however. My degree is in aerospace engineering, and I went to a school known for its traditional engineering programs (mechanical, chemical, aerospace, electrical). In this world, patents aren't viewed negatively the way they are in the software world. First because the capital requirements to enter the field are high, so you don't have little companies for whom a patent suit is an existential crisis. Second, because development is capital intensive. Pratt & Whitney develops new turbine blade designs, and patents them because developing them is tremendously expensive. In software, there is a huge field of things that are patentable that don't fulfill the economic rationale of patent (protecting expensive capital investment from free riding). So the attitude in software is very different. CAFC is full of people with backgrounds in traditional engineering fields. Think DuPont rather than Dropbox. They have a very different perspective, and it is neither corrupt nor invalid.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  What explains the Federal Circuit's relentless pro-patent bias? One obvious theory is what economists call "regulatory capture": the theory that over time, public officials will come to identify with the interest groups they are supposed to be supervising. The theory is usually applied to regulatory agencies in the executive branch (think FCC commissioners becoming Comcast lobbyists), but the theory seems to fit the Federal Circuit as well. Patent attorneys tend to have a pro-patent bias, and these attitudes seem to have rubbed off on Federal Circuit judges. Most obviously, a significant minority of Federal Circuit judges have been patent lawyers themselves, whereas judges on other courts almost never come from a patent law background. But beyond that, the heavy load of patent cases on the court's docket means that the judges of the Federal Circuit are constantly interacting with patent lawyers. In addition to hearing their arguments in the courtroom, they read the same patent law publications as the lawyers, hire young patent lawyers to clerk for them, and are invited to speak at events organized by the patent bar. Moreover, the prestige of the Federal Circuit itself is directly tied to the prominence of patent law in the American legal system. If the Federal Circuit had followed the stricter rules in place before the court was created, patent law might have remained a legal backwater, receiving little attention from either the legal profession or the general public. That, of course, would have made the Federal Circuit a less prestigious place to work. (From [0].) "Corrupt" doesn't seem like too strong a word to me. And yes, on top of that, they know very little about software. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appea...

bbanyc 13y ago

In this particular case the Federal Circuit failed to reach a coherent conclusion. 10 judges were on the panel and they produced 7 opinions, of which only a single paragraph was approved by a majority of the court. It's an intra-circuit split rather than the inter-circuit splits you see in other areas of law.