ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Supreme Court of the United States"

(Noteworthy ex-judges: ==Suitability for deciding policy questions== Former Chief Judge of the CAFC, Paul Redmond Michel had this to say about the Supreme Court's suitability for interpreting)
(Some important cases: note the author of the opinion of the court)
(25 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
{{infobox usa}}
 
The '''US Supreme Court''' is the highest court in the [[USA]].
 
The '''US Supreme Court''' is the highest court in the [[USA]].
  
Line 6: Line 6:
 
Cases treating the most important topic, [[patentable subject matter]]:
 
Cases treating the most important topic, [[patentable subject matter]]:
  
* [[Bilski v. Kappos]] 2009 (as of June 26th, 2010, opinion still pending)
+
{| class="wikitable" style="border:1px solid silver;"
* [[Diamond v. Diehr]], 1981
+
|- style="background-color:#eee;"
* [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)]]
+
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Year
* [[Gottschalk v. Benson]], 1972
+
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Case
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Author
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Context
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Ruling
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Hearing
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Briefs
 +
! style="border:1px solid silver;" |  Wikipedia
 +
|-
 +
| 2014 || Alice v. CLS Bank || [[Justice Thomas|Thomas]] || [[Alice v. CLS Bank (2012, USA)|overview CLS]] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf ruling] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-298_869d.pdf transcript] || [[Alice v. CLS Bank amicus briefs|Briefs]] || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International Wikipedia]
 +
|-
 +
| 2013 || Molecular v. Myriad || || [[Molecular v. Myriad|overview Myriad]] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf ruling] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-398_h3dj.pdf transcript] || - || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics Wikipedia]
 +
|-
 +
| 2012 || Mayo v. Prometheus || [[Justice Breyer|Breyer]] || [[Mayo ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 March 2012|overview Mayo]] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf ruling] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1150.pdf transcript] || -  || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc. Wikipedia]
 +
|-
 +
| 2009 || Bilski v. Kappos || [[Justice Kennedy|Kennedy]] || [[Bilski v. Kappos|overview Bilski]] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf ruling] || [http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf transcript] || [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs|Briefs]] || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos Wikipedia]
 +
|-
 +
| 1981 || Diamond v. Diehr || || [[Diamond v. Diehr|overview Diehr]] || [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=175 ruling] || [ transcript] || - || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr Wikipedia]
 +
|-
 +
| 1978 || Parker v. Flook || || [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)|overview Flook]] || [http://digital-law-online.info/cases/198PQ193.htm ruling] || [ transcript] || - || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook Wikipedia]  
 +
|-
 +
| 1972 || Gottschalk v. Benson || || [[Gottschalk v. Benson|overview Benson]] || [http://digital-law-online.info/cases/175PQ673.htm ruling] || [ transcript] || - || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson Wikipedia]
 +
|}
  
Other cases that (might) have affected software patents:
+
For a complete list of pages on this wiki on the Court's rulings see:
  
* [[Quanta v. LGE (2008, USA)]]
+
* [[:Category:Court rulings by US Supreme Court]]
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 
* [[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]
 
* [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
 
  
 
==The judges==
 
==The judges==
  
The current judges are (as of August 2010):
+
The current judges are (as of July 2012):
  
 
* [[Chief Justice Roberts]]
 
* [[Chief Justice Roberts]]
Line 31: Line 49:
 
* [[Justice Sotomayor]]
 
* [[Justice Sotomayor]]
 
* [[Justice Thomas]]
 
* [[Justice Thomas]]
 +
 +
===Crude analyses coservative-liberal===
 +
 +
Some suggest that conservative judges are more pro-swpat than the liberals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/31/supreme-court-patent-software-business/7112959/|title=Supreme Court skeptical of computer-based patents|quote=The court's conservative justices were more supportive of the patent. Justice Antonin Scalia wondered why implementing an abstract idea on a computer wasn't enough to justify patent protection.}}</ref>  This theory is very crude (and in light of Thomas's opinion in [[Alice v. CLS Bank ruling by US Supreme Court on 19 June 2014|Alice v. CLS Bank]] seems to be disproven), but for what it's worth, one metric classifies the judges in a spectrum based on how conservative or liberal they are, with the four conservative judges slightly spread out, then Kennedy, then the four liberal judges bunched together with very similar scores:<ref>http://mqscores.wustl.edu/measures.php</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png</ref>
 +
 +
* Thomas
 +
* Scalia
 +
* Alito
 +
* Roberts
 +
* Kennedy
 +
* Breyer
 +
* Kagan
 +
* Sotomayer
 +
* Ginsburg
  
 
==Noteworthy ex-judges==
 
==Noteworthy ex-judges==
Line 38: Line 70:
 
==Suitability for deciding policy questions==
 
==Suitability for deciding policy questions==
  
Former Chief Judge of the [[CAFC]], Paul Redmond Michel had this to say about the Supreme Court's suitability for interpreting [[Legislation_in_the_USA#USC_101_.28patentable_subject_matter.29|article 101 of the US Code which defined patentable subject matter]]:<ref>http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/24/chief-judge-michel-interview-sequel-part-2/</ref>
+
Former Chief Judge of the [[CAFC]], Paul Redmond Michel had this to say about the Supreme Court's suitability for interpreting [[Legislation_in_the_USA#USC_101_.28patentable_subject_matter.29|article 101 of the US Code which defines patentable subject matter]]:<ref>http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/24/chief-judge-michel-interview-sequel-part-2/</ref>
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
 
Take Bilski on 101. Nine Supreme Court justices, eight of them had never seen a 101 issue before in their entire time on the Supreme Court. Only Justice Stevens had ever seen a 101 issue before. Well, that shows the problem right there. The Federal Circuit has every issue under the sun come up again and again and again, month after month, year after year. So it has intense exposure to all these different issues and the interplay among all these different sections, and the Supreme Court doesn’t. And, frankly, I think the Supreme Court has often been misled by lawyers. For example, in eBay the Supreme Court was told that we had an “automatic” injunction rule, which was never the case. It was just absolutely false. In the KSR they were told that we had a “rigid” rule that didn’t allow any judgment, which was never the case. So in addition to their inexperience and unfamiliarity with patent law, they’re subject to being manipulated and misinformed by overstated claims by some advocates and they aren’t maybe as well equipped as Federal Circuit judges might be to know that the claim is baloney
 
Take Bilski on 101. Nine Supreme Court justices, eight of them had never seen a 101 issue before in their entire time on the Supreme Court. Only Justice Stevens had ever seen a 101 issue before. Well, that shows the problem right there. The Federal Circuit has every issue under the sun come up again and again and again, month after month, year after year. So it has intense exposure to all these different issues and the interplay among all these different sections, and the Supreme Court doesn’t. And, frankly, I think the Supreme Court has often been misled by lawyers. For example, in eBay the Supreme Court was told that we had an “automatic” injunction rule, which was never the case. It was just absolutely false. In the KSR they were told that we had a “rigid” rule that didn’t allow any judgment, which was never the case. So in addition to their inexperience and unfamiliarity with patent law, they’re subject to being manipulated and misinformed by overstated claims by some advocates and they aren’t maybe as well equipped as Federal Circuit judges might be to know that the claim is baloney
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
Of course, the problems of the CAFC can be seen in cases like [[CLS Bank v. Alice (2012, USA)]], where the CAFC was so splintered that there was finally no majority opinion other than a single line saying they reject the patent.
 +
 +
==Checking for new opinions==
 +
 +
If there's an interesting case, the front page of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ shows the court's calendar.  Opinions are usually published on ''Non-argument Days''.  Sometimes opinions are published the day after a non-argument day, especially if there are a lot of opinions to publish.  The opinions are published at around 10am local time and are put immediately on-line here:
 +
* http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
Line 50: Line 89:
 
* [[US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] - the Federal court that hears patent appeals, below the Supreme Court
 
* [[US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] - the Federal court that hears patent appeals, below the Supreme Court
 
* [[How to submit an amicus brief in the USA]]
 
* [[How to submit an amicus brief in the USA]]
 +
* [[:Category:Court rulings by US Supreme Court]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
  
 
* http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
 
* http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
 +
* [http://judgepedia.org/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#tab=Justices JudgePedia's page on the Justices]
 
* [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ Transcript of the Bilski hearing]
 
* [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ Transcript of the Bilski hearing]
 
** [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/ ESP's highlights]
 
** [http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/ ESP's highlights]
 
** [http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2009/11/software-and-business-method-patents-at.html Software and business method patents: at least four justices see through the Christmas ornament loophole], by Nick Szabo
 
** [http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2009/11/software-and-business-method-patents-at.html Software and business method patents: at least four justices see through the Christmas ornament loophole], by Nick Szabo
 +
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
 
[[Category:USA]]
 
[[Category:USA]]

Revision as of 15:35, 20 June 2014

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the USA.

Some important cases

Cases treating the most important topic, patentable subject matter:

Year Case Author Context Ruling Hearing Briefs Wikipedia
2014 Alice v. CLS Bank Thomas overview CLS ruling transcript Briefs Wikipedia
2013 Molecular v. Myriad overview Myriad ruling transcript - Wikipedia
2012 Mayo v. Prometheus Breyer overview Mayo ruling transcript - Wikipedia
2009 Bilski v. Kappos Kennedy overview Bilski ruling transcript Briefs Wikipedia
1981 Diamond v. Diehr overview Diehr ruling [ transcript] - Wikipedia
1978 Parker v. Flook overview Flook ruling [ transcript] - Wikipedia
1972 Gottschalk v. Benson overview Benson ruling [ transcript] - Wikipedia

For a complete list of pages on this wiki on the Court's rulings see:

The judges

The current judges are (as of July 2012):

Crude analyses coservative-liberal

Some suggest that conservative judges are more pro-swpat than the liberals.[1] This theory is very crude (and in light of Thomas's opinion in Alice v. CLS Bank seems to be disproven), but for what it's worth, one metric classifies the judges in a spectrum based on how conservative or liberal they are, with the four conservative judges slightly spread out, then Kennedy, then the four liberal judges bunched together with very similar scores:[2][3]

  • Thomas
  • Scalia
  • Alito
  • Roberts
  • Kennedy
  • Breyer
  • Kagan
  • Sotomayer
  • Ginsburg

Noteworthy ex-judges

Suitability for deciding policy questions

Former Chief Judge of the CAFC, Paul Redmond Michel had this to say about the Supreme Court's suitability for interpreting article 101 of the US Code which defines patentable subject matter:[4]

Take Bilski on 101. Nine Supreme Court justices, eight of them had never seen a 101 issue before in their entire time on the Supreme Court. Only Justice Stevens had ever seen a 101 issue before. Well, that shows the problem right there. The Federal Circuit has every issue under the sun come up again and again and again, month after month, year after year. So it has intense exposure to all these different issues and the interplay among all these different sections, and the Supreme Court doesn’t. And, frankly, I think the Supreme Court has often been misled by lawyers. For example, in eBay the Supreme Court was told that we had an “automatic” injunction rule, which was never the case. It was just absolutely false. In the KSR they were told that we had a “rigid” rule that didn’t allow any judgment, which was never the case. So in addition to their inexperience and unfamiliarity with patent law, they’re subject to being manipulated and misinformed by overstated claims by some advocates and they aren’t maybe as well equipped as Federal Circuit judges might be to know that the claim is baloney

Of course, the problems of the CAFC can be seen in cases like CLS Bank v. Alice (2012, USA), where the CAFC was so splintered that there was finally no majority opinion other than a single line saying they reject the patent.

Checking for new opinions

If there's an interesting case, the front page of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ shows the court's calendar. Opinions are usually published on Non-argument Days. Sometimes opinions are published the day after a non-argument day, especially if there are a lot of opinions to publish. The opinions are published at around 10am local time and are put immediately on-line here:

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References