Difference between revisions of "John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents"
(==Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)== <blockquote> ''I disagree with the Court’s suggestion that because software is analogous to an abstract set of instructions, itcannot be regarded as a “componen) |
({{navbox}}'''Justice Stevens''' is a judge on the US Supreme Court.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{navbox}} | + | {{navbox}}'''Justice Stevens''' is a judge on the [[US Supreme Court]]. |
==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]== | ==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]== |
Revision as of 16:46, 9 April 2010
Justice Stevens is a judge on the US Supreme Court.
Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)
I disagree with the Court’s suggestion that because software is analogous to an abstract set of instructions, itcannot be regarded as a “component” within the meaning of §271(f). See ante, at 9–10. Whether attached or de-tached from any medium, software plainly satisfies the dictionary definition of that word. See ante, at 9, n. 11 (observing that “‘[c]omponent’ is commonly defined as ‘aconstituent part,’ ‘element,’ or ‘ingredient’”). And unlike a blueprint that merely instructs a user how to do some-thing, software actually causes infringing conduct to occur.It is more like a roller that causes a player piano to pro-duce sound than sheet music that tells a pianist what todo. Moreover, it is surely not “a staple article or commod-ity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use” as that term is used in §271(f)(2). On the contrary, its sole intended use is an infringing use.