The Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the patent, it was after the unique idea that one should bet on the weather, but by a 5-4 majority, they kept the business method patent, albeit with a tightening of standards:
While all nine justices agreed that the “invention” at issue in the case—a method for hedging weather-related risk in energy trading developed by Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw—was too abstract to merit patent protection, only four signed on to Kennedy’s opinion.I think that this was generally a loss for patent sanity, though it does make getting a business patent more restrictive, though, unsurprisingly, SCOTUS didn't say how much more restrictive the standards should be.
That opinion held that the "machine-or-transformation" test for patentability--created by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Bilski decision--was a "useful clue" when gauging a subject’s patentability but shouldn't be considered the only applicable test.
My earlier posts on the matter.
0 comments :
Post a Comment