John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents
John Paul Stevens, or Justice Stevens, is a judge on the US Supreme Court.
Contents
Official statements
Below are excerpts from his contributions in opinions and hearings.
The Bilski hearing
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?
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
