Red Hat failed to achieve the Supreme Court decision it wanted
Red Hat failed to achieve the Supreme Court decision it wanted
Posted Sep 30, 2010 3:24 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Red Hat failed to achieve the Supreme Court decision it wanted by elanthis
Parent article: Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski
The Supreme Court simply chose not to rule on software patents, as the Bilski case had nothing to do with software specifically.
What was at stake are the legal tests for patent-eligible vs. patent-ineligible subject matter. Since many briefs raised the issue of software patents and possible implications of the ruling, the SCOTUS was well aware of the context and of what kinds of patents are out there, but apparently saw no legal basis on which to put a curb on that.
Red Hat did not get what they wanted, but neither did those filing briefs in favor of software patents.
Sorry, but the second part is absolutely wrong. Maybe you didn't read the briefs of the pro-software-patent "amici curiae".
All the pro-software-patent briefs I saw (such as those filed by large high-tech corporations) were against the Bilski patent, but also against restrictive rules. I didn't see even one pro-software-patent brief that asked for wholesale affirmance of the prior instance's reasoning.
In short, Bilski was inconclusive regarding software patents.
It was very conclusive. In order to move toward restrictions, the Supreme Court would have had to walk in exactly the opposite direction. So it was definitely a setback for abolitionists.
The Supreme Court sent out a clear message that anyone wanting to abolish any category of patents has to talk to Congress, not to the judges. Nor to the USPTO, which just applies the laws Congress passes and the judges interpret. Red Hat's thing is a non-starter. If they sent a letter to all members of Congress asking for a new law that does away with software patents, it's hard to see how that would succeed, but at least they would be talking to an institution that could, if it wanted, change the law. The USPTO can't. It only applies it.