This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…
"Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show you how intelligent these nine justices are." Not saying they aren't intelligent. But they might be intelligent enough to have their wives take hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying money directly related to the cases before them and get away with it. So, not their intelligence I'm worried about. Its their ethics and morality.
"It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent." Which precedent would that be?
That's precisely my point, it doesn't seem like there is precedent. For it to be an expansion, there would have to be a precedent that limits it that they'd be overturning. Otherwise, they're just confirming where the “edges” are.
So everything is patentable and it's judicial activism for the Supreme Court to rule that something is unpatentable? Why do you assume it works that way and not the other way around?
Honestly, this is probably the best possible thing. The reality is that under the Patent Act, things which are not fundamentally "inventions" -- such as software algorithms, genes, and in this case, data correlations -- can legally be granted patents. This is a problem with the Act, not with any given court's interpretation of it, and that is what needs to change. I can think of no better way to build political suppo…
I don't believe these things work the way you are assuming they do. Unjust behavior by the part of big corporations like Prometheus need to be stopped at the root and at first sight. Please never hope that the triumph of someone over you in argument, specially one that that gives them a new weapon to fight you, will eventually and reliably become a weakness in their defenses. I'll try to explain why I think so withou…
I agree with you whole-heartedly on these patents. But... I think the point that you're missing is that the Supreme Court is like a meta-court. You don't go there to appeal your case, you go there to appeal specific decisions and interpretations of the law.
IMO, from a lawyers vantage point, what is the difference between a patent covering a software method (like encoding music) and a medical procedure? There really isn't any. Both are equally offensive to the folks who practice in these fields -- I have yet to meet a programmer in favor of software patents, and I'm sure doctors will feel the same way.
The problem is that the law as written is that software patents ARE ok. As long as that is true, how could any judge make a case that medical procedures are not?
That's precisely my point, it doesn't seem like there is precedent. For it to be an expansion, there would have to be a precedent that limits it that they'd be overturning. Otherwise, they're just confirming where the “edges” are.
So everything is patentable and it's judicial activism for the Supreme Court to rule that something is unpatentable? Why do you assume it works that way and not the other way around?
At no point have I used the word judicial activism, nor will you ever hear me use it, since judicial activism
is code for "judges doing their job". They can, if they see it in the law, set limits on patents. If there is nothing in the law supporting such limits, they would be hard pressed to add them randomly.
I was, unfortunately, being a bit pedantic earlier and nitpicking your terminology (expanding vs actually interpreting some initial limits) instead of debating your actual point; I apologize for that.
This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…
"Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show you how intelligent these nine justices are." Not saying they aren't intelligent. But they might be intelligent enough to have their wives take hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying money directly related to the cases before them and get away with it. So, not their intelligence I'm worried about. Its their ethics and morality.
Well, a few thoughts. I haven't looked into this in detail, of course, but some general ones:
- In this particular case, the issue in question was that one justice's wife (Justice Breyer) owned stock in Nestlé, which acquired Prometheus Laboratories, one of the parties in the case, this year. This fact seems to have come out during the case, and the justice's wife ultimately sold her stock before the case began. Nestlé has pretty powerful brand recognition, so it seems silly to read foul play in that particular interaction. Asking justices to never engage in stock trade and, worse, never allow their families to do so, just in case a situation like this should arise, would be somewhat foolish. We rely instead on disclosure of interests and the ability to recuse oneself if a justice chooses not to clear a conflict of interest.
- I don't know of too many financial conflicts that have arisen in the court, particularly recently, that haven't been solved either by something like the above or by recusal.
- It's possible you're referring to the issues regarding the healthcare law and the fact that Justice Thomas's wife has campaigned against it. If so, I'd like to see the evidence that she has taken “hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying money”. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I haven't seen anyone mention money changing hands—people are mentioning a potential conflict of interest that she's advocating against it, but that's a different matter entirely.
Honestly, this is probably the best possible thing. The reality is that under the Patent Act, things which are not fundamentally "inventions" -- such as software algorithms, genes, and in this case, data correlations -- can legally be granted patents. This is a problem with the Act, not with any given court's interpretation of it, and that is what needs to change. I can think of no better way to build political suppo…
> The reality is that under the Patent Act, things which are not fundamentally "inventions" -- such as software algorithms, genes, and in this case, data correlations -- can legally be granted patents.
I have both hardware and software patents and I don't see this distinction that you feel is obvious.
Why is the use of a specific mechanism consisting of and, or, shift, etc to, say, efficiently route vehicle traffic any less of an invention that then removing sulphur before heating rubber to produce a substance that retains its elasticity? (Hmm - that removal and the relevant monitoring looks like a "material correlation".)
BTW - You can't patent "genes". You can patent specific genes to do specific things.
"Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show you how intelligent these nine justices are." Not saying they aren't intelligent. But they might be intelligent enough to have their wives take hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying money directly related to the cases before them and get away with it. So, not their intelligence I'm worried about. Its their ethics and morality.
Well, a few thoughts. I haven't looked into this in detail, of course, but some general ones: - In this particular case, the issue in question was that one justice's wife (Justice Breyer) owned stock in Nestlé, which acquired Prometheus Laboratories, one of the parties in the case, this year. This fact seems to have come out during the case, and the justice's wife ultimately sold her stock before the case began. Nest…