ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Drafting the next US amicus brief

Revision as of 16:12, 8 October 2009 by Steelpillow (talk | contribs) (add cat)

Template:BilskiBilski 3 is a brainstorming project to be ready for next time when the case against software patents has to be explained to a judge. The name hints at its structure: End Software Patents wrote a brief for the 2008 in re Bilski case, and that brief was expanded and further developed for the 2009 Bilski v. Kappos case. There will not be a third Bilski case, but there will be other cases in future, so, what arguments should we be documenting now to be ready when it happens?

The countries pushing software patents are no longer the main holders

The USA, whose companies are the main holders of software patents around the world, holds most of the power and profits that can be obtained with software patents. This may explain why the USA pressures other countries to allow software patents too. However, as other countries expand their patenting of software, the USA will lose this position, so in discussions in the USA, it should be highlighted that this "benefit" of software patents is not going to last and thus the situation will only get worse.

For this we need figures about what percent of software patents, granted by the USPTO and by other patent offices, are given to companies from the USA companies.

This argument may be unnecessary outside the USA. But if necessary, it should be equally applicable in other countries.

Non-abolition "solutions" are failing

This point was left out of ESP's Bilski v. Kappos brief because it was difficult to explain this point convincingly while keeping it short enough for inclusion in the brief.

Disproportion in advice

When courts or patent offices permit external bodies to submit comments or arguments, there is a disproportionately high quantity of contribution from patent lawyers and large corporations. Maybe this could be documented and pointed out as a reason to give more consideration to the anti-software-patent arguments which are few but represent a very under-represented section of society.