[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Freetards lost badly in Bilski
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Freetards lost badly in Bilski |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:56:47 -0000 |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > It _is_ a pity that nothing else was covered. This is not "lost badly",
>
> The SCOTUS overruled CAFC's freetard friendly position regarding
> machine-or-transformation test and decided that
> machine-or-transformation test could NOT serve as the sole test of
> patent-eligibility of processes.
>
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
>
> "In holding to the contrary, the Federal Circuit violated two principles
> of statutory interpretation: Courts should not read into the patent
> laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not
> expressed, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 182, and, [u]nless
> otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary,
> contemporary, common meaning, ibid. The Court is unaware of any
> ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of process that would require
> it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article."
Back in 2009:
http://www.fsf.org/news/esp-bilski
"Bilski ruling: a victory on the path to ending software patents"
"In the Bilski ruling, the CAFC have set aside State Street and left us
with what they believe to be a simplified test for patentability: the
machine or transformation of matter test:
Thus, the proper inquiry under section 101 is not whether the process
claim recites sufficient "physical steps," but rather whether the claim
meets the machine-or-transformation test. As a result, even a claim that
recites "physical steps" but neither recites a particular machine or
apparatus, nor transforms any article into a different state or thing,
is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. Conversely, a claim that
purportedly lacks any "physical steps" but is still tied to a machine or
achieves an eligible transformation passes muster under section 101."
Does the process of loading software on a general purpose computer
become a "particular machine" eligible for patenting? As Professor Duffy
of Patently-O recently noted, the Patent and Trademark Office Board of
Patent Appeals in two recent non-binding rulings (Ex parte Langemyr and
Ex parte Wasynczuk) outlined its position on the matter: "A general
purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative
software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general
purpose computer."
Buh-bye Victoria.
Clearly a sad loss for freetards, how can't you see that, silly dak?
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
- Freetards lost badly in Bilski, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Freetards lost badly in Bilski, Rick, 2010/12/09
- Re: Freetards lost badly in Bilski, Clogwog, 2010/12/09
- Re: Freetards lost badly in Bilski, JEDIDIAH, 2010/12/08
- Moglen's post-Bilski trash-talk, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Moglen's post-Bilski trash-talk, David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: Moglen's post-Bilski trash-talk, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Moglen's post-Bilski trash-talk, David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: Moglen's post-Bilski trash-talk, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Moglen's subbatical--what is he doing?, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Moglen's subbatical--what is he doing?, RJack, 2010/12/08