ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

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

(The Bilski hearing: Note: in US patent legislation, "processes" and "machines" are patentable, so defenders of software patents always have to argue that their invention is on)
(The Bilski hearing: During the Bilski hearing, Stevens sounded very critical of Bilski's patent, and it sounded like his reasoning might apply to most software patents too.)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
:''(see: [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ The Bilski hearing transcript, as text])''
 
:''(see: [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ The Bilski hearing transcript, as text])''
 +
 +
During the Bilski hearing, Stevens sounded very critical of Bilski's patent, and it sounded like his reasoning might apply to most software patents too.
  
 
Replying to Bilksi's lawyer's defence of their patent, Stevens said:
 
Replying to Bilksi's lawyer's defence of their patent, Stevens said:
Line 15: Line 17:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
And his general comments, which are critical of Bilski's patent, seems based on criteria that would also exclude software functionality claims:
+
and:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>

Revision as of 08:47, 18 April 2010

John Paul Stevens, or Justice Stevens, is a judge on the US Supreme Court.

Official statements

Below are excerpts from his contributions in opinions and hearings.

The Bilski hearing

(see: The Bilski hearing transcript, as text)

During the Bilski hearing, Stevens sounded very critical of Bilski's patent, and it sounded like his reasoning might apply to most software patents too.

Replying to Bilksi's lawyer's defence of their patent, Stevens said:

But is it correct that there’s none — none of our cases have ever approved a rule such as you advocate?

and:

I don’t understand how that can be a patent on a machine if the only thing novel is the process that the machine is using. Isn’t — isn’t the question — really, the question there was whether the new process was patentable.

and:

I don’t understand why that isn’t just the application of a process, which – which is not itself patentable subject matter, to a particular machine that can use process

and finally:

It’s not on a computer, which the only difference from the old computer is it’s using a new program. You can’t say that’s a new machine.

Note: in US patent legislation, "processes" and "machines" are patentable, so defenders of software patents always have to argue that their invention is one of these.

Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)

Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in this case.[1] Some argue that the following text indicates that he might now consider software functionality as patentable.

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