Talk:Amazon ruling by Canadian Federal Court on 14 October 2010
 Not proven false
It is interesting and a bit startling that the higher court decided that the reasons given were insufficient to exclude a business method from patentibility, and therefor the method was declared patentable.
Logically, the consequences of "this doesn't prove your point" is that you need to come up with a valid reason. Failing to prove something false doesn't make it true!
For example, my failing to prove that I am attracted to the ground by the action of my "animal spirits" does not mean that I will then float uncontrollably out of the courtroom. The law of gravity continues to be true, even if I failed to use it in my argument.
It rather sounds like the court has given the commissioner only one try at the decision. If such is allowed by the the rules, we'll need another case, plus a valid argument. If the rules don't allow, we need an appeal. And of course, if the court didn't mean a new reason couldn't be raised, we just need a new reason and a petition to the court to consider it.
--dave (Actually there are several more possible interpretations: this is a decision on facts and the law, not an exercise in formal logic) c-b
- It's a good point. I'll have to read the ruling again to see if there are gaps between the arguments ("you didn't prove it's excluded") and the conclusion ("it's not excluded"). Ciaran 21:48, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
 Suggested edits to article
It would be a nice feature to have a link to the actual Canadian laws which apply to patents and especially anything that goes to patentable subject matter. Many eyes might find other reasons why it is not covered subject matter. The court ruled that the Commissioner's reliance on the opinion of a dissenting judge doesn't hold water. But the Court doesn't seem to have explained whether there is some other reason why it might not be. --126.96.36.199 20:51, 3 November 2010 (EDT) - Celtic_hackr (no account here)
- Here it is: Canada#Legislation. (But keep in mind that patent law is always vague about modern technology, so the case law built up by the courts is probably more important than the words in the legislation). Ciaran 21:16, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
- That is to say, here is what I have. No guarantees it's everything. I hope to dig into it one of these days, but if someone feels like beating me to it, the world would be a better place :-) Ciaran 21:47, 3 November 2010 (EDT)