ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs"

 
(11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}This is a list of amicus briefs submitted for the 2009 [[Bilski v. Kappos]] case in the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] of the [[USA]].
+
This is a list of amicus briefs submitted for the 2009 [[Bilski v. Kappos]] case in the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] of the [[USA]].
  
 
Please add briefs here.  Analyses are also welcome, as are links to discussions of the briefs.
 
Please add briefs here.  Analyses are also welcome, as are links to discussions of the briefs.
Line 5: Line 5:
 
==Briefs that discuss software prominently==
 
==Briefs that discuss software prominently==
 
===Categorising the briefs===
 
===Categorising the briefs===
On this page, we've decided not to categorise the briefs by who they support.  Such categorisation can be misleading because two briefs can easily hold opposing views but still both support the same party - "with clarifications".  This is the case for the briefs of Red Hat and IEEE-USA.
+
On this page, we've decided not to categorise the briefs by who they support.  Such categorisation can be misleading because two briefs can easily hold opposing views but still both support the same party - "with clarifications".  This is the case for the briefs of [[Red Hat]] (anti-swpat) and [[IEEE-USA]] (pro-swpat).
  
 
Regarding terminology, briefs which support "''the respondant''" or "''affirmance''" are in favour of upholding the 2008 [[in re Bilski]] CAFC ruling (albeit with clarification which might change it radically).  And briefs which support "''the petitioner''" are briefs which want the 2008 CAFC ruling overruled.
 
Regarding terminology, briefs which support "''the respondant''" or "''affirmance''" are in favour of upholding the 2008 [[in re Bilski]] CAFC ruling (albeit with clarification which might change it radically).  And briefs which support "''the petitioner''" are briefs which want the 2008 CAFC ruling overruled.
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
===FOR software patents===
 
===FOR software patents===
* '''[http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/bilski-sc-amicus.pdf Professor Lee Hollaar and IEEE-USA's brief]'''
+
* '''[http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/bilski-sc-amicus.pdf Professor Lee Hollaar and IEEE-USA's brief]''' (see also: [[IEEE-USA]])
 
** Discussion: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090922030639824 Groklaw]
 
** Discussion: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090922030639824 Groklaw]
 
* '''[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.ibm.pdf IBM's brief]''' (see also: [[IBM]])
 
* '''[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.ibm.pdf IBM's brief]''' (see also: [[IBM]])
Line 90: Line 90:
 
* [[in re Bilski]] - the 2008 case in the Court of Appeals (CAFC)
 
* [[in re Bilski]] - the 2008 case in the Court of Appeals (CAFC)
 
* [[Case law in the USA]] - for more information about the rulings mentioned in these briefs
 
* [[Case law in the USA]] - for more information about the rulings mentioned in these briefs
 +
* [[Consultations from patent offices, governments, and courts]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 97: Line 98:
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
[[Category:USA]]
+
[[Category: Amicus brief analyses]]
[[Category:Bilski]]
+
[[Category: Bilski]]
[[Category:Consultations]]
+
[[Category: Consultations]]
 +
[[Category: USA]]

Latest revision as of 11:44, 25 March 2014

This is a list of amicus briefs submitted for the 2009 Bilski v. Kappos case in the Supreme Court of the USA.

Please add briefs here. Analyses are also welcome, as are links to discussions of the briefs.

Briefs that discuss software prominently

Categorising the briefs

On this page, we've decided not to categorise the briefs by who they support. Such categorisation can be misleading because two briefs can easily hold opposing views but still both support the same party - "with clarifications". This is the case for the briefs of Red Hat (anti-swpat) and IEEE-USA (pro-swpat).

Regarding terminology, briefs which support "the respondant" or "affirmance" are in favour of upholding the 2008 in re Bilski CAFC ruling (albeit with clarification which might change it radically). And briefs which support "the petitioner" are briefs which want the 2008 CAFC ruling overruled.

For want of a better classification, we've categorised the briefs by their relation to swpat.org's focus: software patents.

AGAINST software patents

FOR software patents

Complete list of briefs

The most complete list is at: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov09.shtml#bilski

Please add briefs alphabetically.

Sources:

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links