[Top][All Lists]

[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.
> "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:
"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?


(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.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]