ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981"

m (External links: * [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112/argument Transcript and audio of the oral argument])
Line 13: Line 13:
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr Wikipedia's article on Diamond v. Diehr]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr Wikipedia's article on Diamond v. Diehr]
 +
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112/argument Transcript and audio of the oral argument]
  
  
 
[[Category:USA]]
 
[[Category:USA]]
 
[[Category:Patent infringement suits]]
 
[[Category:Patent infringement suits]]

Revision as of 07:00, 19 August 2009

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981) is the last case where the Supreme Court of the USA ruled on the definition of patentable subject matter.

At issue in this case is a system for curing rubber with the aid of a computer and some mathematical formulas. The Supreme Court upheld the patent and this ruling is generally seen as increasing the scope for the patenting of software.

Others, such as Ben Klemens, argue that the ruling confirms that software ideas are not patentable. (See ESP's 2008 Bilski amicus brief)

The ruling also confirms that "excluded from such patent protection are ... abstract ideas.".

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links