Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Supreme Court limits the ability to gain software patents on abstract ideas. Looks like your clever and original plan to patent patenting is over   (usatoday.com) divider line 4
    More: Hero, software patent, Supreme Court, Australian Companies, United States Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, information technology, web browsing  
•       •       •

1921 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jun 2014 at 2:29 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-19 03:12:10 PM  
2 votes:

moonscatter: Theaetetus: ZAZ: The Supreme Court can reverse any Federal Circuit decision. It can not reverse every Federal Circuit decision. I predict software patents will survive.

Sure. This was the right decision, but for the wrong reason. It highlights why Thomas shouldn't be allowed to write opinions.

Specifically:
On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.  Like the risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is "'a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.'"... Thus, intermediated settlement, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of §101."

No, you dope, that means it's not a  novel idea. It's old as shiat, and should be rejected on  that ground, §102 or §103. But, because the defendant was lazy and didn't find any good prior art, and because SCOTUS can't do its own prior art searches, they'll wave their hands and say it's abstract.

The problem with conflating §101 and §102/§103 is that an idea that is absolutely new and nonobvious - "a method of teleportation" - may still be an abstract idea, and therefore should be ineligible, even if it's not a "long prevalent" practice, or is a "'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[y]' previously known to the industry". Thomas' test wouldn't apply to such a claim, though.

I think they threw him this as a bone - thought he could do the least damage with it. The IP associates at my firm are not having a good morning.

Right now all I care about is Hobby Lobby. Hubby and I have some bets going on (split, author, etc) and I'd love to get out of six months of litter box cleaning.


Get pregnant and you can get out of that for nine months!
2014-06-19 02:04:53 PM  
2 votes:
Wait, you mean Apple will have to actually patent stuff that is actually relevant and innovative?  Welp, they're screwed.
2014-06-19 03:56:20 PM  
1 votes:

Leader O'Cola: So 2 apple rips in 13 posts but an apple joke headline was redlit.Good job retards


As I am not a totalfarker, I can't say for certain, but if the apple joke headline was as funny as the jokes in here , then subby for said headline probably deserved to get redlit and a cockpunch.
2014-06-19 03:37:30 PM  
1 votes:
Ha! I'm patenting limiting the ability to gain software patents on abstract ideas.

Checkmate Supremes!
 
Displayed 4 of 4 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report