E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Become a Fan

« Gonzalez v. Infostream Group, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016) | Main | Lismont v. Alexander Binzel Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) »

February 23, 2016

Comments

"We have decided to patent tens of thousands of software products and similar things where hardly anyone knows what the patent's really about."

And, yet, according to Justice Kennedy, any 2nd year engineering student would be able to create a software program to implement the claims of these patents over a weekend.

See, Alice v. CLS Bank oral argument

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-298_869d.pdf

Does anyone know why Justice Kennedy has not made his 2nd year engineering student available to Justice Breyer to explain what these "tens of thousands of software products" are about?

:-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30