Red Hat is great

Posted Sep 30, 2010 13:24 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: Red Hat is great by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski

> I didn't say it had, or it didn't have, influence. I pointed out that they asked for "affirmance" and failed to get it.

But that's how these things work. You know this.

Neither party wants to be seen as criticising past rulings, so everyone positions themself as agreeing with the court by asking for "affirmance, with certain clarifications".

For example, Red Hat and IEEE-USA both called for affirmance, but one asked the court to clarify that software was never patentable, and the other asked for the opposite.

> Asking someone for the abolition of software patents who doesn't even have the authority to do so

You might be right that their "value" arguments will fall on deaf ears. That's why I focussed on finding direct implications in the text of the Bilski decision. RH took a different approach. I think mine was the right one :-) but I'm certainly happy that someone covered the other angle, just in case.

> Anything less will be unproductive at best, or counterproductive at worst.

I don't see the logic there. As I see it, at worst it will be unproductive, in which case their effectiveness only as low as the many who didn't submit any response - nothing to criticise.

to post comments

Affirmance

Posted Sep 30, 2010 13:45 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

For example, Red Hat and IEEE-USA both called for affirmance, but one asked the court to clarify that software was never patentable, and the other asked for the opposite.

Yes, two parties can ask for affirmance and still have desires and concerns about what else should or might happen.

I said that what Red Hat asked for (affirmance) wasn't enough to do away with software patents, but affirmance would have been a step in a restrictive direction. The IEEE obviously didn't want things to be any more restrictive, and Red Hat would have liked them to be even more restrictive. Since the Court, however, walked in the very opposite direction as that desired by Red Hat, it's fair to say Red Hat failed to get what it wanted. It wanted at least affirmance, ideally something more restrictive; there was no affirmance but instead a clearly less restrictive line.

As I see it, at worst it will be unproductive, in which case their effectiveness only as low as the many who didn't submit any response - nothing to criticise.

You quoted only the "Anything less" sentence. But "less" is always relative to something, so here's my statement again: "You need a strong base of significant companies with R&D-centric business models (not mere monetizers) to ask lawmakers to act. Anything less will be unproductive at best, or counterproductive at worst. Or just a PR stunt, like in this case." So "anything less" related to the whole thing, including what kinds of companies you need and what they should do. By "counterproductive" I mean the impression it can make in the political arena, not in terms of what the USPTO will establish as guidelines. In terms of the USPTO's guidelines, it will just be "unproductive". I looked at it in terms of what would have to happen to bring about change.