Supreme Court Punts on Software Patent Controversy
Observers of the case had seen it as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address unresolved issues about what should or should not be covered by a patent. Proponents of the status quo argue that they are defending intellectual property rights. Proponents of change say that over-broad patents stifle innovation. Among the difficult questions that the Justices declined to tackle with Bilski v. Kappos are, as reported by Claburn:
?the appropriateness of granting patents for 20 years when different industries have different market cycles and innovation time-lines; the appropriateness of allowing ideas to be patented at all; defining universally appropriate patent infringement penalties and legal remedies like injunctions; assuring patent examiners understand the patent applications they review and have adequate resources; and approaches for dealing with abusive patent litigation.
He goes on to quote Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center to the effect that the decision leaves the IT industry in ?the same miasma of uncertainty that we were in? prior to the case. Moglen argues that the current state of affairs no longer serves the industry, citing the value that open-source technology has brought to industry over the past two decades.
Similar Posts:
- Dealtalk: Google bid “pi” for Nortel patents and lost
- Chicago Commercial Lawyer Lists Wrigleyville 2BD
- How To Discover The Most Appropriate Instant Online Health Insurance Quote Posted By : Andrew Jennings
- Get The Lowest Auto Insurance Quote Online
- Obama Suggests US Should Be Able To Negotiate Drug Prices
Leave a Reply