Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarybits | Hacker News Reader

"True change in this area really is something where the Court can only do so much. The definitions of patents in general are determined by Congress and its laws."

Sorry, but this is just completely wrong. The law regarding patentable subject matter is almost entirely judge-made. There are broad categories of inventions in software, medicine, business methods, and elsewhere that clearly were not eligible for patent protection in 1980 and are eligible for patent protection under recent court decisions. This didn't change because Congress passed new legislation. It changed because the courts (primarily the Federal Circuit) changed its mind. Given that fact, it makes sense to criticize the courts for continuing to expand the bounds of patentable subject matter, no?

View on HN

To some extent. But if you give so much latitude to judges, you're asking for complications. Unfortunately, things like obviousness and originality are not clear cut. If we want limits per se, I think Congress is the place to implement them, not the courts.

That said, it's worth asking whether the courts are actually expanding the bounds of patentable subject matter, or simply upholding the breadth of the existing laws. It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent. If they aren't overturning precedent, they're simply saying “yep, the law is in fact this broad”. I'm not super-well-versed in the details of the case, however.

"It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent."

Which precedent would that be?

That's precisely my point, it doesn't seem like there is precedent. For it to be an expansion, there would have to be a precedent that limits it that they'd be overturning. Otherwise, they're just confirming where the “edges” are.

Exactly, that's why it reached the supreme court. The US has a COMMON LAW system. That means that this case will be applied to further cases in order to determine what the common punishment should be. The supreme court sets supreme precedent.

So everything is patentable and it's judicial activism for the Supreme Court to rule that something is unpatentable? Why do you assume it works that way and not the other way around?

At no point have I used the word judicial activism, nor will you ever hear me use it, since judicial activism is code for "judges doing their job". They can, if they see it in the law, set limits on patents. If there is nothing in the law supporting such limits, they would be hard pressed to add them randomly.

I was, unfortunately, being a bit pedantic earlier and nitpicking your terminology (expanding vs actually interpreting some initial limits) instead of debating your actual point; I apologize for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com