ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

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

(AGAINST software patents)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 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 11: Line 11:
 
For want of a better classification, we've categorised the briefs by their relation to swpat.org's focus: software patents.
 
For want of a better classification, we've categorised the briefs by their relation to swpat.org's focus: software patents.
  
moELDW  <a href="http://xqndikkbbnfi.com/">xqndikkbbnfi</a>, [url=http://krjlghfihgiv.com/]krjlghfihgiv[/url], [link=http://wtagrathrlre.com/]wtagrathrlre[/link], http://mqheirfbhfrg.com/
+
===AGAINST software patents===
 +
* '''[http://endsoftpatents.org/amicus-bilski-2009 FSF's brief]''', (see also: [[FSF]], and their [http://www.fsf.org/news/bilski-supreme-court-brief press release])
 +
** Discussion: [http://lwn.net/Articles/355448/ LWN.net], [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091002212330353 Groklaw], [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2009/oct/13/0x18/ SFLC podcast]
 +
** Please give feedback on this letter via the [[Bilski 3]] project
 +
* '''[http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-964_RespondentAmCu7FinancialCorps.pdf Google and 6 financial institutions' brief]'''
 +
** Details: [[Google]]
 +
* '''[http://www.groklaw.net/images/BilskiRedHatSCbrief.pdf Red Hat's brief]''', (see also: [[Red Hat]], and their [http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2009/bilski.html press release])
 +
** Discussion: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091001154227155 Groklaw], [http://lwn.net/Articles/355244/ LWN.net], [http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/red-hat-bilski-brief-says-software-patents-stifle-innovation.ars Ars], [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/02/1426208/Red-Hat-Files-Amicus-Brief-In-Bilski-Patent-Case Slashdot]
 +
* '''[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/bilski-amicus-brief.html SFLC's brief]''', (see also: [[SFLC]], and their [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/oct/02/sflc-files-in-bilski/ press release])
 +
** Discussion: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091002213301495 Groklaw], [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/03/2042255/SFLC-Tells-SCOTUS-Software-Patents-Are-Unjust Slashdot]
 +
* '''[http://www.patentlyo.com/files/08-964-foundation-for-a-free-information-infrastructure.pdf FFII and IP Justice's brief]''', (see also: [[FFII]] and [[IP Justice]], and their [http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/FFII%20and%20IP%20Justice%20file%20Bilski%20Amicus%20Brief%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court press release])
 +
* http://keionline.org/node/634
  
 
===FOR software patents===
 
===FOR software patents===
Line 87: 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