About
The
Supreme Court Technology Law Blog
Edited by Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Archives
01 Oct - 31 Oct 200501 Apr - 30 Apr 2007
01 May - 31 May 2007
01 Jun - 30 Jun 2007
01 Jul - 31 Jul 2007
01 Aug - 31 Aug 2007
01 Sep - 30 Sep 2007
01 Oct - 31 Oct 2007
01 Jan - 31 Jan 2008
01 Sep - 30 Sep 2008
01 Nov - 30 Nov 2008
Links
ABOUT US:
This weblog was created to share ideas about the development of Computer Law and Cyberlaw issues that receive attention in federal court litigation, particularly those issues that reach the U.S. SUPREME COURT. This blog is edited by:
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Search!
Last Comments
PledepypeType (The Scope of Pate…): Make sure the insurance c…OVGuillermo (A blog's worth): Thank you for your site. …
shadowman (ICANN whois - pol…): Hi! How r u? nice site!
Stuff
Linkdump
» New Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court proposes revised Rule 25.8 on electronic filing: "An electronic version of every brief on the merits shall be transmitted to the Clerk of Court and to opposing counsel of record at the time the brief is filed in accordance with guidelines established by the Clerk. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement that booklet-format briefs be timely filed." Effective August 1, 2007.
one comment | ¶
» Google Calendar
Google Calendar
is a free online shareable calendar service. With Google Calendar, it's easy to keep track of important events – birthdays, reunions, little league games, doctor's appointments – in one place.
two comments | ¶
Google Calendar
is a free online shareable calendar service. With Google Calendar, it's easy to keep track of important events – birthdays, reunions, little league games, doctor's appointments – in one place.
two comments | ¶
» Software Patents
Does Microsoft v. ATT raise analogic implications for software patents? I say yes. And, consider the USPTO's instruction concerning subject matter patents.
"Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor
statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions."
Thinking in terms of the Court's holding in Microsoft v. ATT, would Windows on a CD-ROM constitute a physical thing or a textual expression? Should the treatment of the software be the same under subject matter analysis as well as a section 271(f) issue? one comment | ¶
"Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor
statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions."
Thinking in terms of the Court's holding in Microsoft v. ATT, would Windows on a CD-ROM constitute a physical thing or a textual expression? Should the treatment of the software be the same under subject matter analysis as well as a section 271(f) issue? one comment | ¶
Trackback link:Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url