Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Your Rights Online

Supreme Court Throws Out Bilski Patent 232

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
ciaran_o_riordan writes "The US Supreme Court has finally decided the Bilski case (PDF). We've known that Bilski's patent would get thrown out; that was clear from the open mockery from the judges during last November's hearing. The big question is, since rejecting a particular patent requires providing a general test and explaining why this patent fails that test, how broad will their test be? Will it try to kill the plague of software patents? And is their test designed well enough to stand up to the army of patent lawyers who'll be making a science (and a career) of minimizing and circumventing it? The judges have created a new test, so this will take some reading before any degree of victory can be declared. The important part is pages 5-16 of the PDF, which is the majority opinion. The End Software Patents campaign is already analyzing the decision, and collecting other analyses. Some background is available at Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?" More analysis of the decision is available at Patently-O.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Throws Out Bilski Patent

Comments Filter:
  • "journalism" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday June 28, 2010 @11:42AM (#32717194) Homepage

    How could you write a blurb about the "Bilski patent" without explaining what the Bilski patent actually is? How could the editors pass on such a terrible blurb unmodified?

  • by Rivalz (1431453) on Monday June 28, 2010 @11:46AM (#32717234)

    Let's make a Patent that Patents the system for which Patent Lawyers & Patent Registers Circumvent Common Sense and are awarded Patents. That way anyone who files one of these ridiculous patents are infringing upon my patent. Anyone who defends the patent is also infringing upon my patent.
    I'll see you in court Bitches. (That is step 6 of my process)

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Monday June 28, 2010 @12:02PM (#32717426)
    Is the real story that Bilski case got thrown out over machine-or-transformation test failure, or that the article contains "Supreme's" in the name?
  • Re:"journalism" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 0racle (667029) on Monday June 28, 2010 @12:04PM (#32717446)
    Google too difficult for you?
  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday June 28, 2010 @01:11PM (#32718464) Journal

    " This [, the Information]Age puts the possibil ity of innovation in the hands of more people and raises new difficulties for the patent law. With ever more people trying to innovate and thus seeking patent protections for their inventions, the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of general principles. Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck."

    Translation: Congress, do your fucking job.

  • by pavera (320634) on Monday June 28, 2010 @01:37PM (#32719042) Homepage Journal

    So... essentially the court accepted a case and then wasted everyone's time doing the USPTO's job, and declared the patent invalid in this specific case because it wasn't patentable material... Something the USPTO should have done in the first place...

    No new precedent, no new tests, no new rules... So everything will stay exactly as it is, and the USPTO will continue to approve bogus patents just like this one... Great! I love America!

"The pyramid is opening!" "Which one?" "The one with the ever-widening hole in it!" -- The Firesign Theatre

Working...