I’m Dubious, But….
Bill Quick

Supreme Court hears argument on a patent worthy of King Tut | Ars Technica

An hour-long oral argument (PDF) at the US Supreme Court today didn’t reveal much about what kind of test the justices might install to stop overly “abstract” patents from being granted. But several justices did seem skeptical about the idea that Australian holding company Alice Corp. had invented much of anything with its patents on a form of financial risk-management.

Today’s case: An Australian patent holder’s idea boils down to 7 lines of code.

Alice Corp v. CLS Bank could be the most wide-ranging patent case in years if the justices choose to install a new test on software or “business method” patents. They last addressed the issue in Bilski, but that case left in place a rule that was unevenly applied. And the chaotic state of the law became clear when the Alice v. CLS case resulted in a deeply fractured set of opinions from the nation’s top patent court.

I doubt that SCOTUS will cough up a ruling that will stand the global financial system on its ear, but with this court, one never knows.

Posted in Finance permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


I’m Dubious, But…. — 1 Comment

  1. Let’s forget attempting to apply the Constitution to the case. It doesn’t provide much textual guidance anyway. Let’s forget about the “justices” attempting to apply original intent; that would provide plenty of guidance, but it’s not a popular approach these days.

    Don’t contort your neurons in speculating about the “justices” understanding the technical issues.

    Instead, do some nose counting. Do a majority of the sitting “justices” hate and distrust capitalism and any economic system more sophisticated than barter? If so, the specious reasoning of the decision won’t matter. The outcome was decided in advance and the rest is just sophistry.