4 ms·
I'm confused about this part: "While Tuesday’s rulings appear to be good news for patent reform advocates, they also raise the question of whether they might un
by ambler0 12y ago
I'm confused about this part: "While Tuesday’s rulings appear to be good news for patent reform advocates, they also raise the question of whether they might undercut a major patent bill that is slated to be debated in the Senate on Thursday."
Anyone with knowledge of this care to explain?
- blahedo 12y agoIANAL, but I think this is more a political comment: the motivation for the upcoming patent bill was (partially) that existing law is too troll-friendly and needs to be fixed; but if the SC has clarified the existing law to be less troll-friendly, then it's not as important to reform the law. I'm reminded of an Atlantic article I recently read about the Warren Court in the 60s---by deciding one case on extremely narrow procedural grounds rather than on the merits, the court left a "this needs to be fixed" motivation that gave political room for the Civil Rights Act.
- gtaylor 12y agoThe best way to get the Senate to make patent reform a priority is a Samsung-induced sales injunction on iPhones. The outrage would be immediate, and we'd have this resolved in weeks instead of years or decades (if we ever do "resolve" it). Unfortunately, I don't think such an injunction is in the cards. It would hit home enough in that it'd inconvenience them personally, which would spur immediate action.
- Robadob 12y agoDidn't a lesser version of this already happen and Obama decided to let Apple have a free pass? http://www.cnbc.com/id/100937213 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100937213