Difference between revisions of "Legislation in the USA"
(200.8) |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | = | + | itDBLu <a href="http://ldgskrmrkyua.com/">ldgskrmrkyua</a>, [url=http://xhunedcwedft.com/]xhunedcwedft[/url], [link=http://puxainvozsve.com/]puxainvozsve[/link], http://bjjqewguqswk.com/ |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | http:// | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== |
Revision as of 14:49, 24 May 2010
Legislation in the USA gives no direct indication about whether software ideas should be patentable. Discussion thus usually focusses on case law in the USA.
The constitution
The constitution allows for the posibility of patents to exist to promote the useful arts. Given the studies showing that patents harm software progress, this seems to clearly leave software patents as unconstitutional.
On one hand, the 2003 Supreme Court deferred to Congress in the Eldred v. Ashcroft, allowing Congress to interpret this aspect of the constitution. Congress has not legislated specifically on the validity of software patents.
On the other hand, in the 1966 Graham v. John Deere case, the Supreme Court ruled:
The Congress in the exercise of the patent power may not overreach the restraints imposed by the stated constitutional purpose. Nor may it enlarge the patent monopoly without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby. [...] This is the standard expressed in the Constitution and it may not be ignored.
itDBLu <a href="http://ldgskrmrkyua.com/">ldgskrmrkyua</a>, [url=http://xhunedcwedft.com/]xhunedcwedft[/url], [link=http://puxainvozsve.com/]puxainvozsve[/link], http://bjjqewguqswk.com/