SFLC argues against software patents in the Supreme Court
| From: | Jim Garrison <garrison-AT-softwarefreedom.org> | |
| To: | undisclosed-recipients:; | |
| Subject: | SFLC Files Brief with Supreme Court Arguing Against Software Patents | |
| Date: | Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:00:21 -0500 |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Software Freedom Law Center Files Brief with Supreme Court Arguing Against Software Patents Brief Filed in Microsoft v. AT&T NEW YORK, December 15, 2006 -- The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), provider of pro-bono legal services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software, today filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing against the patenting of software. In the case Microsoft v. AT&T, the Supreme Court will decide whether U.S. patents can apply to software that is copied and distributed overseas. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized patent court known for allowing patents on software and business methods, originally decided in favor of AT&T, expanding the international reach of U.S. software patents. Microsoft appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In its brief, SFLC argues that software copied and distributed outside the United States cannot infringe U.S. patents. The brief also argues that the Federal Circuit's decisions declaring software to be patentable subject matter conflict with Supreme Court precedent and, as such, should be overruled. "I expect many people will be surprised that the Software Freedom Law Center has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Microsoft," said Daniel Ravicher, SFLC Legal Director. "In this specific case, Microsoft and SFLC are both supporting the position that U.S. software patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents." In Supreme Court decisions, the explanation for deciding a case is almost always more important than the outcome of the particular case at hand. In this case, the Court's decision will determine whether U.S. software patents can be used to restrict software development, distribution and use throughout the rest of the world. The ruling may also decide whether software patents are even legally allowed to exist in the United States. "In contrast to the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court has maintained limits on patentable subject matter throughout U.S. history," said Eben Moglen, Executive Director of SFLC. "The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that algorithms and mathematics cannot be patented. Since software is expressed as mathematical algorithms, it should not be patentable." Software patents are an important issue for developers and users of Free and Open Source Software. The Software Freedom Law Center, along with other organizations, hosted a conference at MIT and Boston University in November that addressed the legal, economic and social consequences of software patents. SFLC's brief is available on the Web at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.html About the Software Freedom Law Center The Software Freedom Law Center -- chaired by Eben Moglen, one of the world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software -- provides legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects. For criteria on eligibility and to apply for assistance, please contact the Law Center directly or visit the Web at http://www.softwarefreedom.org.
Posted Dec 15, 2006 16:21 UTC (Fri)
by rvfh (guest, #31018)
[Link]
Software patents are an important issue for developers and users of
Free and Open Source Software. Indeed, but not only, as this case proves. If even Mr Gates does not want them to cross borders, there must be a good reason!
Posted Dec 16, 2006 3:00 UTC (Sat)
by ChristopheC (guest, #28570)
[Link] (8 responses)
From what (little) I have seen, the Supreme Court prides itself in
I am still hoping, though. ^^
Posted Dec 16, 2006 4:23 UTC (Sat)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Dec 18, 2006 0:45 UTC (Mon)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (6 responses)
Very impressive!
Posted Dec 18, 2006 15:45 UTC (Mon)
by cross (guest, #13601)
[Link]
Posted Dec 18, 2006 21:02 UTC (Mon)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Dec 19, 2006 3:51 UTC (Tue)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (3 responses)
You're right, I should have known better than to take on a notorious
pedant (you're nearly as bad as I am) without belt & braces. I understand that it's usual to mark diæreses (I presume I have
correctly pluralised the word) explicitly like that in Dutch?
Posted Dec 19, 2006 9:20 UTC (Tue)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't speak Dutch, at best I can decipher simple signs occasionally and even that is hit or miss ;) so I can't really say much on that. I remember vaguely reading that the mark is used in Dutch in the same way in English. In English it should be used to mark a vowel cluster which is NOT to be interpreted in the most common way - as a dipthong. So for instance 'coop' is a single syllable, 'coöp' is two. I know it's also used that way in French, and I always figured that's where we got it from, but I don't really know.
Posted Dec 19, 2006 10:42 UTC (Tue)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link] (1 responses)
"ü" would sound like something like "yew", and "ä" like the one in "ham".
Posted Dec 19, 2006 19:15 UTC (Tue)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link]
Posted Dec 16, 2006 17:59 UTC (Sat)
by dark (guest, #8483)
[Link]
Posted Dec 17, 2006 17:49 UTC (Sun)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Dec 18, 2006 0:54 UTC (Mon)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Dec 18, 2006 20:42 UTC (Mon)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 18, 2006 21:07 UTC (Mon)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link]
IANAL, this is my understanding from following the court, and could well be wrong.
SFLC argues against software patents in the Supreme Court
"The ruling may also decide whether software patents are even legally SFLC argues against software patents in the Supreme Court
allowed to exist in the United States."
*narrow* rulings, so I find this a tad far-fetched.
It would be far-fetched, if not for the fact that all the previous SC precedents rule out software patents. If the SC chose to take the course Moglen is asking them to take, it would simply be reäffirming past precedent. SFLC argues against software patents in the Supreme Court
> reäffirmingyou win this month's "most superfluous dierisis prize"
OK, so it's wildly off topic, but it does make words much more legible were two consecutive vowels are in fact separate syllables, as in the text you quoted. I've long felt that words like coöperate could benefit from such a spelling.you win this month's "most superfluous dierisis prize"
The word is actually "diæresis" - note that the penultimate vowel is an 'e' not an 'i'. ;)Ahem
Ahem
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If by 'usual' you mean common, no, since the early typewriter makers decided it was too difficult to put the needed characters on the keyboard, their use has become sadly rare in English. Ahem
Not at all. The first would sound something like "ko-op" the second "ko-erp". These designate umlauts, not different syllables. Ahem
No, we are discussing the diæresis. You are talking about the umlaut. Although they look the same, they are very different things. Ahem
It's great to see a head-on attack on the whole concept. I'll definitely follow this story.
I'm impressed
So the SFLC is actually arguing only the "Supreme Court never allowed software patents at all" point, the "outside USA" point is not even mentioned in this brief. It will be interesting to see how this ends up, since the actual argument was not whether software patents can exist or not.
All or nothing approach
How do Supreme Court cases work in the US, can the parties still settle? Given that neither MS or ATT want to have software patents abolished, if this brief is taken at all seriously, it would be likely that they settle the case so as not to have a ruling at all.
In any case, this is a great challenge of status quo by the SFLC, very good news. It will be interesting to see whether "US Software Patents may be illegal" headlines start showing up, or if this is noticed at all. If we could make that kind of discussion happen, it would significantly alter the whole patenting landscape, both in the US and Europe.
The Supreme Court has pretty much unlimited discretion. They can consider questions neither party wants them to, although it's rare. In this case, the SFLC brief is not so completely removed - Microsoft has argued the validity of the patents on the same grounds, although their arguments did not go so far. All or nothing approach
So in particular: If MS and ATT decide to settle their issues out of court, the Supreme Court may still decide to rule on this software patent issue (or any issue) irregardless?
All or nothing approach
Or, does the case just disappear if the parties settle?
It's my understanding the SC can do whatever they want. If the parties wish to withdraw at this point I think they would have to petition the court for approval. On the one hand, like most courts, the SC has a heavy docket and are happy to dispose of cases quickly. On the other hand, by the time they agree to hear a case, they've put some time and effort into it and probably want to go ahead and finish it up. So I can't predict what would happen, other than to say the court can pretty much do whatever they wish to. All or nothing approach