Bilski SCOTUS oral arguments

[Robert K S]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf

I'll reserve comment for now except to say I found myself feeling alternately sympathetic to both positions throughout the course of the arguments, which indicates to me that it's a worthy case.

If the Supreme Court doesn't just affirm the Circuit ruling, their decision is going to have to be very, very clever.

[ChrisWhewell]

Thanks.

M or T test to be deemed sufficient but not necessary ?  I'd like them to highlight the statutory language "any new process"
and declare that there is no statutory requirement to tie a process to a M or a T, provided that something new and useful results, and then focus on how to define or interpret that "new and useful".  The new part seems easy, guidance is needed for the useful part. 
I ponder what the effect would be on the system if it were declared that transformation of data from propagable electronic signals to expression in an ordered array of electronic states in a physical memory is all that's necessary to satisfy a transformation, and all processes which inherently or otherwise include such a transformation in at least one of their process steps qualify.  It could be argued though, that all such transformation of expression, is a mere language translation, like going from German to French.  Arguing the change is from a dynamic form to a static form in the case of signals to memory won't help, since a stenographer makes a physical record from propagating sound waves.  There must be some way to distinguish these, no ?

[JimIvey]

Thanks for posting.  I'll read this today (or soon).

I understand that the claims at issue may not stand.  You know what they say, bad facts make bad law. 

But the things that worry me most of the Fed Cir opinion was how easily and casually they wiped away both Supreme Court and Fed Cir precedent to reach the rule applied to the claims.  Without having followed up on all the briefs (did you see how many there were?!?!) and much other than the grant of cert, I still expect prior alternative tests for Section 101 (particularly useful results) to be reinstated.

The law just doesn't change in such large increments so quickly and easily.

Regards.

[Jonathan]

I find it particularly interesting to be in these times of S.C. patent rulings.

There was that KSR ruling in the last few years and now this (that they are considering this matter) .. maybe as not consequential but it seems to be in the league of Graham v. John Deere.

[MolecularAgent66076]

While this is being decided, I was wondering what opinions do people in this forum have?  Do you agree with CAFC's prior ruling or do you think Bilski's ("abstract") method of trading commodities is patentable?  In this era of AT&Ts and Microsofts, I am leaning towards the former.  Thanks.

P.S. I am not an attorney/practitioner - yet.

[JimIvey]

I did a quick search.  Here are a few topics discussing Bilski.

• Federal Circuit En Banc Opinion in In Re Bilski
• cert granted in Bilski
• "A particular machine or apparatus ..." under Bilski
• What happens to CS Patent Laywers if Bilski rules against?
• Bilski, what to do ??

Regards.

[ChrisWhewell]

These good:

http://www.iptoday.com/articles/2009-9-hirning.asp

http://www.iptoday.com/articles/2009-8-gaspar.asp

[Robert K S]

But the things that worry me most of the Fed Cir opinion was how easily and casually they wiped away both Supreme Court and Fed Cir precedent to reach the rule applied to the claims.  Without having followed up on all the briefs (did you see how many there were?!?!) and much other than the grant of cert, I still expect prior alternative tests for Section 101 (particularly useful results) to be reinstated.

Jim, I'm not sure I follow you here (though I never read the full CAFC decision, just summaries).  Can you elaborate?

I'll have a lot more to say about the oral arguments in a day or two when I'm less busy with work.

[JimIvey]

Jim, I'm not sure I follow you here (though I never read the full CAFC decision, just summaries).  Can you elaborate?

It's all in the first link I posted above.

Regards.

[dablueman]

I did a quick search.  Here are a few topics discussing Bilski.

• Federal Circuit En Banc Opinion in In Re Bilski

Regards.

Reminded me of my original beliefs about software being a Turing machine. I still believe that, yet I go on using the hastily drafted interm guidelines with its wonderful charts that boil all possible variations into 2 simplistic logic diagrams. My only christmas wish is for the Supreme Court to not mess it up any more. Justice Kennedy was reading my mind in oral arguments. [/list]