ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Alice v. CLS Bank amicus briefs"

(→‎External links: Other people's summaries of the briefs=== * [https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/alice_v_cls-resources.html By Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC)] * [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/software-patent-eligibility.html By)
(→‎Other people's summaries of the briefs: Category: Alice v. CLS Bank Category: Amicus brief analyses)
Line 40: Line 40:
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
 +
[[Category: Alice v. CLS Bank]]
 +
[[Category: Amicus brief analyses]]

Revision as of 11:43, 25 March 2014

Below are briefs submitted to the US Supreme Court for the case Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. (Petitioner) v. CLS Bank International, et al.

Briefs for abolishing software patents

To be checked - might be good

EFF's brief 
Note: None of EFF's public campaigns support the complete abolition of software patents, but their amicus briefs are surprisingly anti-swpat. I'll have to read this carefully to check exactly what they've suggested.
Newegg and other retailers 
Argue that a bright line test to eliminate business method patents is the most important thing so that businesses would not have to litigate beyond summary judgement. Apparently retailers consider the expense of trial the key weapon of trolls, regardless of the chances of eventual victory.

Briefs not against abolishing software patents

IBM
IEEE-USA
Trading Technologies
Alice (the patent aggressor in this case)
Proove Biosciences, Inc. 
Strongly pro-software-patents. Says patents should be examined "as a whole" (wording from the Diehr ruling), which means a combination of a computer and an abstract idea, as a whole, is no longer an abstract idea.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Other people's summaries of the briefs

Retrieved from "https://wiki.endsoftwarepatents.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_v._CLS_Bank_amicus_briefs&oldid=35160"