ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents"

({{navbox}}'''Justice Stevens''' is a judge on the US Supreme Court.)
([http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/ Exploring Justice Steven’s Patent Past for Clues] * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens Wikipedia: Jo)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}'''Justice Stevens''' is a judge on the [[US Supreme Court]].
+
{{navbox}}'''John Paul Stevens''', or '''Justice Stevens''', is a judge on the [[US Supreme Court]].
  
 
==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]==
 
==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]==
Line 6: Line 6:
 
''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.
 
''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.
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
 +
* [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/ Exploring Justice Steven’s Patent Past for Clues]
 +
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens Wikipedia: John Paul Stevens]
  
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}

Revision as of 18:16, 9 April 2010

John Paul Stevens, or 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.

External links