Supreme Court Rules Software Patents Invalid-Without Ever Mentioning Software Once In the Decision

Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago to Technology
504 comments | Share | Flag

"What this means is that companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google and others have had the value of their patent portfolios nearly completely erased today. If they wish to remain compliant with Sarbanes Oxley and other laws and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission they will need to level with their shareholders and tell them that their patent portfolios have been decimated."

db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 15.
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie,

    How do you form that opinion? What is your expertise in patent law? Do you know the difference between "comprising" and "consisting of", do you know the doctrine of claim differentiation?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When I went to law school I thought I would enjoy constitutional law. Many of the decisions would get an F in freshman year classes on composition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Note one of the Supreme Court justices are factually or legally competent to be patent attorneys. Legally, patent attorneys have to have a engineering or science background. Factually, you cannot correctly rule on patents if you do not understand the technology. None of the Justices has any idea what a computer is or does. None of them no how to read a patent claim among many other things they do not understand about patent law.

    None of the Sup. Ct Justices would make it as a first year associate in patent law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Stealing other people's work is the definition of a moocher.

    Patents are not inherently based on subjective criteria. An invention is a human creation with a objective result. An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are the law recognizing that creation. Patents are just property rights in inventions. This is objective and logical.

    Non-obviousness is subjective, has nothing to do with patents and was one of the first examples of Judicial activism. You want to make patents objective get rid of the non-obviousness requirement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because you do not understand property rights. You clearly do not understand natural rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That liberty includes Property Rights - in fact that is the most important part of your liberty. And patent are the most fundamental property right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Patents are the basis of property rights. You cannot have a patent system without property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mik,

    Patents are not a monopoly. Venice patents only covered a small number of people. If you were at all interested in the evidence you would see that every bit of income you earn above subsistence is because of property rights inventions - PATENTS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well then you don't understand property rights. Because property rights are based on creation. Please be honest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rozar being impervious to logic and reason is not peaceful. Ultimately you are an anarcho-libertarian. You refuse to acknowledge that you point of view ultimately leads to a government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mike,

    You are impervious to logic. An invention is a human creation with an objective result (repeatable). An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are based on creation. Thus patents are property right that recognized the inventor's creation of an invention, just like all property rights. That is OBJECTIVE AND RATIONAL
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, Patent are firmly rooted in Locke's natural rights which is consistent with Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For those of you who do not consider patents legitimate property, you are violating the US Constitution. You don't understand the basis of property rights. Property rights are the law recognizing the metaphysical fact that you created something.

    You also do not seem to understand what software and computers are. Software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit. A computer is a electronic circuit that can be wired to accomplish a specific task.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me "original' means as signed and after the anti-federalists were able to topple the 'made for banksters and aristocrats' version from Alexander Hamilton and his gang of looters. As signed includes the Bill of Rights which could be argued to be restrictions upon the central government, but the word 'right' appears repeatedly in defining those restrictions.
    (Entirely possible that I missed your point, db.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please define new and novel. You seem to not understand the basic facts of physics. Every invention in the history of the world is combination of existing or known elements. This is because of conservation of energy and matter.

    Your argument appears to be that Novel means creating something from nothing which is impossible. But thanks for spewing socialist propaganda designed to destroy property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please provide actual evidence. I deal with software companies everyday. And they do not infringe anyone's patents.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please provide actual evidence. So far you just seem to be good a spewing socialist propaganda designed to destroy property rights. In fact why are you on this site? You clearly do not believe in property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Really. First of all you don't seem to understand what software is. It is a way of wiring an electronic circuit.

    Second of all Alice's had a real invention, it was not done before Alice created it, it save billions of dollars a year, and not CLS did not just use a computer to automate an escrow system. If it had then ALice would not of sued them.

    Check your premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie,

    Infoworld is not a patent attorney. They did not just slap a computer on a general idea. Infoworld is part of the mass propagation of lies surrounding people's property right in their inventions. The fact that you are falling for this Socialist propaganda is surprising to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Lucky,

    There is no evidence for a mass creation of patents without technical merit. Please provide hard facts not propaganda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only RIGHT in the original constitution is the right of inventors and artists to their creations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your ignorance of patent and history is outrageous. Before the advent of modern patent system people lived in the Malthusian Trap (edge of starvation). Every bit of income you make above subsistence you can thank for the advent of property rights in inventions - patents.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Jan,

    Your propaganda is outrageous. Please find the patent on the Wheel from Australia and send it to me. I can assure it does not cover just a wheel. But yes there have been advances on wheels and those were patented. For instance, radial tires, non-air tires, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo