Tag: patent

Categories
Law

In His Latest Opinion, Clarence Thomas Shows How It’s Done

Wesley J. Smith points out how well written Clarence Thomas’ latest opinion is:

> That’s how a Supreme Court decision should be written: Precise. Limited in scope. No bloviating. To the point. *Applying*, not creating law. Bravo Justice Thomas. Would your colleagues knew how to do it as well. (emphasis in original)

I completely agree.[^f5217]

[^f5217]: DISCLAIMER: This post may contain some discussion about legal issues, but (1) it is not legal advice, (2) it does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and (3) it is not advertising for legal services. The full disclaimer can be found on the [Disclaimer Page](https://johnkiv.us/disclaimer/).

Categories
Software

A Plea to the Courts to Determine Whether or Not Software is Patentable

Dennis Crouch of Patently-O pleads with the courts to finally answer an important question:

> The result from this long history is that we still have software patents but they are hidden under the surface. They are harder to find, harder to examine, harder to understand, and thus much more problematic than they need to be. After fifty years of controversy; meandering administrative practice; and inconsistent Supreme Court decision making, it is time for the courts to take a stand and deliver the law in a way that is clear and precise. Finally answer the question Is software patentable?

For a less legalistic take, *see* [Ars Technica](http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/index/~3/JTzNygfMeII/).

*See also* [Google’s chief legal officer’s calls for software patent reform](http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/9/3479492/google-software-patent-reform) and [the general counsel at Rackpace saying they would “love to get rid of software patents”](http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/index/~3/FsH7juqHLJQ/).

Categories
Law Politics

EFF Breaks Down the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act

First, I approve of using the SHIELD acronym. Second, I have not read the actual legislation yet, so I cannot give detailed comments. That being said, it sounds interesting:

> The idea behind the SHIELD Act is simple: if you sue someone, you better have a reasonable and good-faith belief that you are entitled to relief. In other words, a plaintiff needs to believe that a defendant actually infringes a valid patent before it sues. If it doesn’t, that plaintiff could be on the hook for the costs of litigation and for the winning party’s attorneys’ fees (which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases).

And, probably most importantly:

> This bill is also important because it would only apply to software and computer hardware patents.

I am going to have to dig deeper into this one.