You laugh, but this is, in all likelihood a big part of the actual reason. A few years back, for example, they amended the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to require 14-point type in all legal briefs filed with the federal courts of appeals. Federal judges = old guys (and a few old gals) = deteriorating eyesight.
A lot of the proposed amendments add new clauses that specifically limit software patenting. Probaly not enough limits to satisfy the "no software patents" crowd, but still... it sure would be nice if U.S. law took some of these principles a little more clearly to heart:
(13a) However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.
* * * * *
(13b) If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.
* * * * *
(13c) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.
* * * * *
2. A claim to a computer program, on its own, on a carrier or as a signal, shall be allowable only if such program would, when loaded or run on a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, implement a product or carry out a process patentable under Articles 4 and 4a.
Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:
The object of any law relating to patenting is not to ensure that patent-holders enjoy an advantage: the advantage granted to the patent-holder is only a means of encouraging the inventive process for the benefit of the society as whole. The advantages granted to the patent-holder must not work against this ultimate objective of the patent principle.
This part should be required reading at the USPTO...:-)
The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.
The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.
Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format, but if you want to read it, here's the link: E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com, Inc.
Don't read too much into this decision. The court hasn't found that there was infringement, only that the lower court nees to take a closer look at the issue. (In legal terms, the court of appeals overturned a grant of summary judgment by the lower court, meaning that the lower court has to hear additional evidence and/or reconsider its application of law before it can render a final judgment.) This is an interim opinion, but the case is not over yet.
Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
But the Supreme Court didn't actually say that, or anything of the kind. Read the linked article. Castillo thinks the Supreme Court refused to hear his case because Castillo thinks the Court thinks it's a question for the states. But the Court itself didn't say one word about why it refused to hear Castillo's case, so we have no way to know whether his belief about their reasons is an accurate belief or not. The Court gets asked to hear thousands of cases every year and actually hears fewer than a hundred of them. The Court generally doesn't offer any explanation of why it takes, or fails to take, any particular case -- and its order denying Castillo's petition says nothing about why they decided not to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
You laugh, but this is, in all likelihood a big part of the actual reason. A few years back, for example, they amended the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to require 14-point type in all legal briefs filed with the federal courts of appeals. Federal judges = old guys (and a few old gals) = deteriorating eyesight.
A lot of the proposed amendments add new clauses that specifically limit software patenting. Probaly not enough limits to satisfy the "no software patents" crowd, but still... it sure would be nice if U.S. law took some of these principles a little more clearly to heart:
Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:
This part should be required reading at the USPTO... :-)
The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.
The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.
Unfortunately, the court only posts its decisions in MS Word format, but if you want to read it, here's the link: E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com, Inc.
Don't read too much into this decision. The court hasn't found that there was infringement, only that the lower court nees to take a closer look at the issue. (In legal terms, the court of appeals overturned a grant of summary judgment by the lower court, meaning that the lower court has to hear additional evidence and/or reconsider its application of law before it can render a final judgment.) This is an interim opinion, but the case is not over yet.
Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
But the Supreme Court didn't actually say that, or anything of the kind. Read the linked article. Castillo thinks the Supreme Court refused to hear his case because Castillo thinks the Court thinks it's a question for the states. But the Court itself didn't say one word about why it refused to hear Castillo's case, so we have no way to know whether his belief about their reasons is an accurate belief or not. The Court gets asked to hear thousands of cases every year and actually hears fewer than a hundred of them. The Court generally doesn't offer any explanation of why it takes, or fails to take, any particular case -- and its order denying Castillo's petition says nothing about why they decided not to hear it.