Supreme Court Throws Out Bilski Patent

ciaran_o_riordan writes "The US Supreme Court has finally decided the Bilski case (PDF). We've known that Bilski's patent would get thrown out; that was clear from the open mockery from the judges during last November's hearing. The big question is, since rejecting a particular patent requires providing a general test and explaining why this patent fails that test, how broad will their test be? Will it try to kill the plague of software patents? And is their test designed well enough to stand up to the army of patent lawyers who'll be making a science (and a career) of minimizing and circumventing it? The judges have created a new test, so this will take some reading before any degree of victory can be declared. The important part is pages 5-16 of the PDF, which is the majority opinion. The End Software Patents campaign is already analyzing the decision, and collecting other analyses. Some background is available at Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?" More analysis of the decision is available at Patently-O.

Comments

Re:Apostrophe's

[jeffmeden]

For more tip's, be sure to check out this great, informative guide: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

One more decision today

[jimbobborg]

The SCOTUS also threw out the Chicago Gun Ban. So the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, too.

Re:One more decision today

[rickb928]

WE'VE all known that, but we have to keep reminding those who would infringe these rights.

Re:One more decision today

[dlgeek]

Did you even read the decision? The court has minimized the "privileges and immunities" clause since the Slaughter House cases in the 19th century. They specifically and reflectively refused to reverse that decision and refused to use that clause to apply the 2nd amendment to the states as was hoped for in McDonald v. Chicago. Instead, they used the due process clause like all the other incorporations.

Re:Apostrophe's

[ari_j]

I prefer "HOT DOGS" to HOT "DOGS" - it could be any kind of canine meat used!

Re:Neither funny nor accurate

[Myopic]

The apostrophe is largely used to show contractions or missing letters. "Supreme" is here an abbreviation for "Supreme court justices". So "Supreme's", though annoying, cannot be said to be grammatically incorrect.

Did you just suggest that "Supreme's" is a contraction of "Supreme court justices"? As in Supreme[ court justice]s? If that's what you mean, I find that preposterous. Contractions are only meaningful when generally accepted. You can't just leave out a few words and call it a contraction.

Re:Neither funny nor accurate

[Jay L]

Kupfernigk wins the subthread.

Re:Neither funny nor accurate

[eggy78]

I laughed out loud at this. Now if I could only decode it.

Re:Did you understand it?

[cyberfunkr]

Contractions are only meaningful when generally accepted

Or when the sense is plain.

I understood it perfectly. The Supremes are making a comeback after more than 40 years of hiatus and their first hit, "Bilski Patent", will be thrown out for free download soon.

Right?

Re:Neither funny nor accurate

[ceswiedler]

The apostrophe was not there as a contraction. It was there for exactly the reason Dave Barry was making fun of: frequently people insert an apostrophe when they add an S to the end of a word because they're not sure of the rules involved and seem to think it's better to err on the side of the apostrophe.

I think what you've just proven is that a moderate amount of learning is a dangerous thing.

Re:Apostrophe's

[joeyblades]

Sheesh... you're just like my kids... How do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it?

Re:Did you understand it?

[jd]

Nonono. It was actually a mistype. The Supremes have patented the Bikini.