Difference between revisions of "John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents"
([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) |
(Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in this case.<ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1056.pdf</ref>) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]== | ==[[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in this case.<ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1056.pdf</ref> | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
* [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/ Exploring Justice Steven’s Patent Past for Clues] | * [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] | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens Wikipedia: John Paul Stevens] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 17 April 2010
John Paul Stevens, or Justice Stevens, is a judge on the US Supreme Court.
Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)
Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in this case.[1]
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
References
