tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8874516.post2661155228763913439..comments2008-10-31T15:09:39.718-07:00The Rampant Coyotehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15387255479630422698noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8874516.post-11717330296024386722008-10-31T15:09:00.000-07:002008-10-31T15:09:00.000-07:00What? A patent attorney overstating the case for something that might affect his livelihood? Nah, couldn't be!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the additional link. I'd found three links on the subject, and they were all extremely brief and filled with hype.The Rampant Coyotehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15387255479630422698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8874516.post-89906040729637827292008-10-31T12:22:00.000-07:002008-10-31T12:22:00.000-07:00I think it's possible that the article to which you linked may have exaggerated matters slightly. Looking instead at the Ars Technica account at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081030-appeals-court-limits-software-business-method-patents.html provides what might be a slightly more even view of the subject. In particular, they note that "indeed, the Federal Circuit reiterated that some software and business method patents are valid", and that the particular patent examined here was more abstract than most software/business method patents. Note also, I suppose, that the case was specifically about business method patents, and not about software patents, although the two are linked.polemarkhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279755361633594435noreply@blogger.com