| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Very surprisingVery surprisingPosted Jun 1, 2009 21:36 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: Bilski case going to the U.S. Supreme Court
I wasn't expecting the SC to take it. What happens in the USA is important globally because most countries that accept swpats do so because the USA makes it a requirement for a trade agreement. If the USA reduces the scope for granting swpats, that means the scope for pressuring others is also greatly reduced. New Zealand's Patents Bill is the other most active swpat debate right now, and one of the big factors in that is about a trade agreement with the USA.
(Log in to post comments)
Very surprising Posted Jun 1, 2009 23:08 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
I have to say I'm not that much surprised - Bilski is so much of a departure from previous decisions I think they were pretty much bound to take it once the big lawyers and Corps. moved in: they could wait for the "better case" but in all honesty that would probably be years from now.
Be good if SCOTUS upholds it. My 50p would be on the bet the other way, though.
Very surprising Posted Jun 1, 2009 23:46 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Well, win or lose, this means the question of whether swpats are good or bad will be in the news for the next 12 months, which I think plays in our favour.
Very surprising Posted Jun 2, 2009 2:47 UTC (Tue) by gwolf (subscriber, #14632) [Link]
I am a Mexican. Believe me, I was frankly amazed when I learnt that, in our Free Trade Agreement (that is arguably one of the least symmetrical FTAs ever signed, as our economies are radically disimilar and there is a clear unidirectional dependency) software patents are _expresly excluded_. I don't know if software patents were not as important as they are today back in 1993-94 when the NAFTA was signed, but the Mexican congress managed to get them explicitly excluded from the agreement.
Very surprising Posted Jun 2, 2009 16:15 UTC (Tue) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] I wouldn't be too confident about that. "Free trade" is largely political theatre. For example, when Canada and the USA had their most recent dispute over softwood lumber, the USA simply ignored NAFTA and WTO rulings that were unfavourable. Since Canada depends more on trade with the USA than the reverse, Canada ended up on the losing side. I would not expect Mexico to be treated any differently if software patents ever become an issue.
Got a link? Posted Jun 2, 2009 19:49 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That's great news. I'm trying to document the situation in Latin America on the swpat.org wiki. Do you have a link about swpats being excluded from NAFTA? It could be added to this stub page I just started: Mexico.
Got a link? Posted Jun 3, 2009 15:44 UTC (Wed) by gwolf (subscriber, #14632) [Link]
I don't remember where I read this, I am quite sure, about this being in the NAFTA text itself But here it is from the Mexican legislation, published in 1991, and several times amended (last time in 2005):
http://www.impi.gob.mx/wb/IMPI/ley_de_la_propiedad_indust...
Industrial Property Law, article 19:
Got a link? Posted Jun 3, 2009 23:34 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Thanks. I've added the link and some text now.
That's a big help. This sort of info is hard for a foreigner to find.
Excluded from patents Posted Jun 9, 2009 2:17 UTC (Tue) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link]
Goodness that seems like a sensible list! You can't patent discovered gene sequences, chemicals found in natural herbs, software "look-and-feels", etc. If only other countries were as sane.
|
|
||||||||||||