[A2k] "Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus): Re: US Federal Circuit to Consider Software Patentability

Benjamin Henrion bh at udev.org
Wed Oct 10 00:38:42 PDT 2012


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Manon Ress <manon.ress at keionline.org> wrote:
> Note the a2k List does not accept attachment
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "\"Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus)\"" <gibus at april.org>
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:46:05 +0200
> Subject: Re: [A2k] US Federal Circuit to Consider Software Patentability
> Le 09/10/2012 19:41, Seth Johnson a écrit :
>> Yeah!  So can we get an amicus filing that explains that the test of
>> patentability of the software is the presence of a logic processor?
>
> For this, there was already a good amicus brief by Timothy B. and Lee
> and others from Cato Institute, thats was filed for Prometheus vs Mayo:
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/mayo-v-prometheus-labs>.
> Prometheus vs. Mayo was not actually the good case to argue about
> swpats, but the same arguments perfectly fits in CLS Bank.
>
> Also good arguments about the "logic processor" in various post by
> "PolR" on groklaw:
> <http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=polr&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search>,
> although his arguments are to be reworded to a more legal style of
> amicus briefs.
>
> And of course amici filed for Bilsky can be a source of inspiration
> (although I haven't read all of them and wasn't really convinced by
> SFLC's one).
>
> Note also that this is not US Supreme Court, but CAFC, which, as it has
> been underlined in the past weeks, is not really likely to waive its
> pro-patent bias. But who knows? They've already done so in Bilsky.
>
> PS: about Erik's post on this list yesterday on " NYT: patents as
> swords" and regular expressions, I don't feel this is the good time in
> US to argument around prior art. There seems to be a momentum to go
> further and be firm about a clear and full exclusion of software from
> patentability. Don't waste this momentum with prior art arguments.

So programmers cannot express themselves in the form of regexps given
to a programmable apparatus?

Maybe those expert patent judges can explain to the public how it
articulates with the First Amendment?

-- 
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-3500762
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
democratically elected legislators."




More information about the A2k mailing list