There is a good chance that the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Bilski v. Kappos later this morning. Supreme Court specialist Tom Goldstein writes hopefully: “The longest-outstanding case is Bilski, the business methods patent case. It has likely taken this long because the Court is being very careful with the details, and perhaps because of separate opinions addressing issues like software patents.”
UPDATE: No decision today. The court will release opinions on Thursday (June 24) and again next Monday.
Here we go again – Mooney, the champion of gay marriage.
I just have to wonder, … why?
Ned: Malcolm, your fictitious name enhances your freedom to speak. Admit it.
It doesn’t enhance my freedom to speak. I have just as much freedom either way. The anonymity does diminish your options for responding to my speech, however. Feel free to complain to Dennis.
Again, commenting on a blog is so vastly different from signing a petition to put an initiative on a ballot to take away a minority group’s constitutional rights that it sickens somewhat that you would even make the comparison. Then again, you are the guy who claimed that the ACLU had an anti-religious agenda or something like that.
ping: Where does “a mere 51% majority” suffice to change a state’s constitution? That’s wacked.
Welcome to California.
The good news is that Judge Walker is certainly going to smack down the discriminatory amendment as unconstitutional under the Federal constitution, which it most certainly is, there being no rational basis whatsoever for the government’s failure to grant same-sex marriages the same benefits as opposite-sex marriages. Of course, there’s plenty of irrational bases for the ban, and also a bunch of made-up baloney and all of this was exposed during the trial. Funny thing: many of the propenents of the irrational and made-up baloney were afraid to even show up at trial and demanded that the trial not be televised. Meanwhile, the representatives of the minority group who are constantly under threat of violence by members of the majority group and who have been fighting for their civil rights for years did not seem to mind the attention.
Go figure.
“If only registered voters could somehow sign the petitions, and only once each, but nobody checked whether they signed or not, I’d feel a little better about it.”
Of course, IANAE is on point again. The Dude is awesome. Given that I’m too lazy to read the decision, Ida bank on what IANAE says.
But isn’t the stink here not whether the signatories can be checked to be true voters (which I think everyone agrees is a good thing)or not, but rather the general release to the public of the roll call of people, and their addresses?
Just like IANAE points out – the “how” you vote is kept secret, the desire to see an issue placed on ballot is “nuancely” related to the “how”, isn’t it? Can’t the government validate the roll call without releasing that roll call to the public? The public suredly won’t be validating anything, will it?
Your ability to vote in private still exists, does it not?
Yes, but in order to vote you must first be registered, and your identity must be confirmed. They don’t care which way you vote, but they do care who enters the voting booth and how many ballots they cast.
If only registered voters could somehow sign the petitions, and only once each, but nobody checked whether they signed or not, I’d feel a little better about it. Presumably that could be arranged similarly to how they run elections. At least it would prevent half the signatures from unverifiably being racist Disney characters from the ’50s.
sarah,
That might be too nuanced.
If you are afraid of “thugs”, Call your local police. They’ll protect you. hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!
Malcolm,
Where does “a mere 51% majority” suffice to change a state’s constitution? That’s wacked.
“your fictitious name enhances your freedom to speak”
“The names have been changed to protect the innocent.”
Wasn’t that a line from a TV show?
“I am not a crook”
A line by someone not using a fictitious name.
The whole concept of ballot initiatives is re-tar-ded anyway. There’s a reason we have representational government as the majority of the public will always vote for more services and lower taxes. The ballot process is one of the reasons California’s economy is tanking.
Ned Malcolm, your fictitious name enhances your freedom to speak. Admit it.
We’re not talking about commenting on a blog, Ned. We’re talking about a process for putting an initiative onto a ballot that requires a certain amount of signatures, wherein the signatures are public for reasons of transparency and preventing fraud. If you don’t like the process, you can change the process. But you don’t have a constitutional right to a keep your name private.
What you don’t see as “nuance” is that the position you take is equitable to “might makes right”.
Let’s get this straight. I want to require support for a petition to be public, where that petition supports an initiative that requires a mere 51% majority to take away someone else’s rights away under the state constitution, absent a shred of rational basis for the initiative. And somehow *my* position is equivalent to “might makes right”? Get a clue, looser.
Malcolm,
Your ignorance continues.
“I see this all a bit too nuanced for you. The bottom line here is that you don’t have a constitutional right to pass laws anonymously”
The referendum is not secret. The signature on a referendum does not pass a law. Your ability to vote in private still exists, does it not?
What you don’t see as “nuance” is that the position you take is equitable to “might makes right”. The fact that this does not offend your liberal sensibilities is at least ironic.
Malcolm, your fictitious name enhances your freedom to speak. Admit it.
Malcolm, let’s conduct a test of bravery:
I use my real name here.
That makes you “brave”?
Malcolm, let’s conduct a test of bravery:
I use my real name here.
Do you?
the freedoms of this country do not merely belong to the “Brave”, but also (and especially) to those who are not “Brave”.
I see this all a bit too nuanced for you. The bottom line here is that you don’t have a constitutional right to pass laws anonymously, whether you are brave or not.
If you are afraid of “thugs”, call your local police. They’ll protect you. Unless of course you are a member of some disgusting minority group they don’t like.
God Bless America!
Bilski’s invention is a technological process a.k.a useful art. Certified by the PTO to be novel and non obvious.
Bilski has a constitutional Right to his patent. As do all Inventors that meet the guidelines of the Constitution, Statute, and the rules of the USPTO.
Malcolm,
Your ignorance is astounding. Try looking a llittle more indepth at the precepts of Free Speach to see that “Brave” is not what is required here – the freedoms of this country do not merely belong to the “Brave“, but also (and especially) to those who are not “Brave“.
Ned
Thomas, being a black man, seems to have a lot more sympathy with the potential for violence when one speaks up on a hot issue. Blacks were kept down in the US for a very very long time using this technique.
So what are you saying, Ned? If someone floated a petition to make interracial marriage unconstitutional, you’d be afraid to sign it because some “thugs” might beat you up?
Like Scalia said: so much for the Home of the Brave.
Malcolm, Scalia was wrong here just as Kennedy was wrong in Citizen’s United on the issue of disclosure of the names and addresses of campaign contributors. Thomas was the sole dissenter on this issue in both cases. I side with Thomas.
What is happening here is that a controversial petition is on the ballot. The opposers access and then publish on the internet people who sign the petition or who support financially a candidate or a petition. The WHOLE point of that publication is that thugs go over to the premises of the petition signers and make them “regret” signing.
This purpose is not hypothetical. It actually happened in the case of a “gay marriage” petition in California. Not surprisingly, the current case involves the very same issue and the whole intent of the disclosure is to make signers of the petition “regret” their signature.
Thomas, being a black man, seems to have a lot more sympathy with the potential for violence when one speaks up on a hot issue. Blacks were kept down in the US for a very very long time using this technique.
He understands. He is right on this issue.
Scalia in Doe v. Reed, Washington State et al:
Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
Well done, Tony. Guess who the lone dissenter was? Hint: burnt umber.
So far, the Supreme Court has published seven decisions this morning at this time. Sorry folks – again no Bilski.
That’s it for the cases published today. Will have to wait until Monday!
So far, the Supreme Court has published six decisions this morning at this time. Sorry folks – again no Bilski.
Wait for Morrison…
No law about being wrong is there?
So far, the Supreme Court has published five decisions this morning at this time. Sorry folks – again no Bilski.
So far, the Supreme Court has published two decisions this morning at this time. Sorry folks – again no Bilski.
Bilski Watcher
So far, the Supreme Court has published one decision this morning. Sorry folks – again no Bilski.
I made the $$$ point a long time ago.
And the fact that a question needs answering does not imply that it would be good to have it answered. Bilski’s patentability would best have been left to the great moot court in the sky.
I’m rather surprised that nobody in the patent world has offered enough $$$ to simply pay Bilski to drop his case.
Everyone on both sides of the issue needs this question answered. If the Bilski application did not exist, we would have had no choice but to invent it.
Assuming it’s an invention, which it probably isn’t.
I’m rather surprised that nobody in the patent world has offered enough $$$ to simply pay Bilski to drop his case.
Paul,
I guess hope can spring eternal on Bilski. We “mere mortals” in the patent world still await in wonder and trepidation.
“I can well understand your propensity for posting quasi-anonymously.”
Yeah and Can sucked what with those Kermit D Frog vocals…what? That’s a different band? Never mind.
O lente lente currite noctis equi!
I suspect it will be tomorrow
“I can well understand your propensity for posting quasi-anonymously.”
That, plus the fear of having to move out of mom’s basement.
Malcolm Mooney | Jun 21, 2010 at 04:42 PM
“Maybe Justice Thomas ran out of crayons.”
This is an incredibly inappropriate and cheap shot directed to a specific member of the court. Personal disagreement with the opinions of a justice is no reason to engage in mockery.
Under the circumstances I can well understand your propensity for posting quasi-anonymously.
Predicting a Supreme Court decision is like predicting the state of a quantum particle.
Actually, it’s worse. We know neither where it is nor which direction it’s going.
what one might expect from a lame duck justice.
Aren’t all justices lame duck justices? None of them are up for re-election or re-appointment or any other form of public accountability.
I love all the attempts to predict the decision based on the delay. Predicting a Supreme Court decision is like predicting the state of a quantum particle. You don’t really know until you actually read the opinion, then you claim you knew it was always going to come out that way.
The Stevens dissents recently were interesting, they almost sounded like, well, what one might expect from a lame duck justice. Not that I’m predicting anything, but if it turns out that the delay was caused by his writing a dissent many times longer than the majority opinion, I’ll claim to have known that all along.
Does it count as a rumor if no one believes it?
or someone who liked starting rumors.
As opposed to spreading them, like NWPA.
…or someone who liked starting rumors.
I’ve heard a rumor that he wrote the majority opinion.
I wonder who started the rumor? Probably someone with inside information …
Just eyeballing the number of opinions authored by each judge it does indeed seem like Thomas is a frontrunner.
>>Maybe Justice Thomas ran out of crayons.
Interesting you are going after him. I’ve heard a rumor that he wrote the majority opinion.
Well, as far as I remember, after the outrageous Kelo decision some public activists tried to condemn one of the justices property to eminent domain and build a hotel there…
I see something similar happening here: a bunch of activists are going to initiate ex parte reexaminations of the Justices’ various patents. That’ll teach ’em.
“The question is WHAT has it taken so long to puzzle over?”
Paul,
Trying to divine what goes on in the “decision-making” process of SCOTUS is an exercise in futility and frustration. You might as well use a Ouija board. The Bretheren written by Woodward and Armstrong allegedly gives us a peek into the murky corridors of this august body’s thinking process (or perhaps a “fictionalized” or speculative view of that process created by these authors). See link to en.wikipedia.org The comments in this book on Sakraida v. Ag Pro (commonly referred to in The Brethren as the “cowshit case”) are enough to cause any patent attorney’s blood to boil.
Maybe Justice Thomas ran out of crayons.
Are you saying Justice Thomas can’t reach a better conclusion than a wise Crayola?
Maybe all SCOTUS justices are trying to complete introductory course in CS/EE which will qualify them to start talking about the subject at issue ?
Right now they are not qualified to pass any decision on Bilski
Maybe Justice Thomas ran out of crayons.
“They could have released the opinion weeks ago if the answer were that simple.”
They could have released any opinion weeks ago, no matter how simple or how complicated.
The fact that they haven’t released an opinion may speak to a deadlocked decision, perhaps a tussle between those camps wanting a simple decision and those wanting a complicated one. Perhaps some Justices want to apply judicial efficiency and a minimalist approach while certain other judges want a magnus opus.
Contrarian – I originally thought we might see an improvidently granted order following oral arguments or a very simple order requiring the Fed. Cir. apply some different test. However that seems entirely unlikely right now.
Will the decision be an elephant or a mouse?
Doesn’t much matter to me, as long as they deep-fry a copy on Fox & Friends.
The question is WHAT has it taken so long to puzzle over?
Will the decision be an elephant or a mouse?
On the whole, elephant-size decisions take longer, but you never know.
“As if it really needed to be said, I agree with Malcolm.”
You forgot the “Oook”.
I disagree with Contrarian. They could have released the opinion weeks ago if the answer were that simple.
A day without a Bilski decision is a day with/without sunshine depending upon your point of view. And the beat/wait goes on . . .
Mike, complete disagree here. I forsee a vacate and remand with sparse instructions to the Fed. Cir. to come up with a new test, perhaps overruling the precedents that forced MoT. 8-1 or 9-0.
Here’s the formula for a broad Bilski opinion:
0. section 101 is a low bar to patentability, but the subject matter must meet some test [insert the big ? regarding the test the SCOTUS wants to articulate]
1. the claims of bilski are invalid as not patentable subject matter under 101.
2. the substance of Bilski’s claims are not patentable subject matter; no form over substance claim drafting can overcome this issue.
3. claims written to merely recite a general purpose machine, be it the human mind or a computer, merely elevate form over substance.
I don’t know if this will actually happen that way, but if the SCOTUS has taken this long, they are going to offer guidance on the scope of substance that fits within the intent of 101. I also think the Court is not going to let it fly that Bilski could simply go back and amend the claim to simply recite a “computer-implemented method” thereby easily wiping out the precedent and shifting the argument to something more like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
then what is your guess for the Bilski opinion?
My guess is that it will be out next week.
Well, IANAE and MM then what is your guess for the Bilski opinion?
The only question is (1) how badly does Bilski lose and (2) how badly does the decision shake the foundation for patenting methods of calculating stuff on a computer and (3) how badly does the decision shake the foundation for diagnostic methods lacking a transformative testing step.
As if it really needed to be said, I agree with Malcolm.
What is your cite for this?
Try this recipe:
Take Aristocrat (MPF claims need corresponding algorithmic structure), add new case that will come in a matter of time (beauregard claims recite no structure and thus are MPF), put into pan and broil until 99.99 percent of beauregard claims are toast–lacking the corresponding algorithmic structure mandated by Aristocrat.
Venturing observations on Malcolm’s points:
1) Enough. Bilski don’t get a patent – it’s a Yes/No option.
2) Pure Dicta in any result – the Bilski case does not depend on a computer. Supremes may want to pontificate, but computer-type stuff aint tied directly enought to the merits of this case.
3) No clear answer to be provided – guarenteed to disappoint.
THey shoulda canvassed IANAE for his opinion, that way theyda got it right.
>>Beauregard claims (dead in the water, just in >>a matter of time).
What is your cite for this?
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/technology/21>>swype.html
MM better write to the NYT and tell them this is no invention and his aunt could easily do this. MM suggested that this was no different than the old game of drawing letters on someone’s back and guessing the letter. MM continued that his aunt was available to stand with her back to mobile phone users. The mobile phone user could draw on her back and she would guess the letter and word and type them in for the mobile phone user. She also said she would provide a movie recommendation. For some reason, MM went on that this rendered the invention not an invention. His aunt smiled.
I think they are in recess and won’t be around for any outrage from whichever side loses
Um, does anybody think Bilski is going to win? The only question is (1) how badly does Bilski lose and (2) how badly does the decision shake the foundation for patenting methods of calculating stuff on a computer and (3) how badly does the decision shake the foundation for diagnostic methods lacking a transformative testing step.
The decision will have no impact on the eligibility of patents on isolated genes (which will remain eligible absent legislative intervention) or the viability of Beauregard claims (dead in the water, just in a matter of time).
Gotta love the thinly-veiled personal threats against Supreme Court judges. Good ol’ crazy fatalist, you never disappoint.
According to Wikipedia, the branch of government that is accountable to the people has overturned Kelo by statute in pretty much every jurisdiction.
Perhaps a remedial civics class is in order?
“They don’t care about public outrage. They have tenure.”
Well, as far as I remember, after the outrageous Kelo decision some public activists tried to condemn one of the justices property to eminent domain and build a hotel there…
So, they’d better care…
I am holding out for an order for re-argument next session.
Probably not gonna get an “improvidently granted” on this one.
I think they are in recess and won’t be around for any outrage from whichever side loses
They don’t care about public outrage. They have tenure.
My guess: Monday June 28th.
After that, I think they are in recess and won’t be around for any outrage from whichever side loses (e.g., pro-patent vs anti-patent).
I noticed that the SCOTUSblog entry on Friday, June 18 informing us that Thursday will be a decision day also indicated that the Court “is pushing toward summer recess, perhaps beginning late this month.” (emphasis mine)
Does that mean the Court might anoint additional decision days, extending the term into next month?
Man is pestilence, especially the blogging type! See you next week.
They published opinions last Thursday. I am not sure why it couldn’t be both. Doesn’t a clerk just upload them to the site and send them off to be published.
So far, the Supreme Court has published four decisions this morning. Sorry folks — still no Bilski.
Anyone know where the court announced that June 24th would be an opinions day? Where did SCOTUSblog get that info?
The supremecourt.gov calendar has it as a conferences day.
Thanks.
So there remains time to enter the “Who Will Be The Last Commentator to Opine on Bilski Before SCOTUS Does” contest. My contribution is that it will be written by Justice Stevens as the capstone both to his career and this session.
I’ve been following the live SCOTUSblog as well and none of their comments indicated that Bilski would be decided today. They simply observed that the court would likely take its time on the ruling, which indicates, if anything, that we’ll have to wait until next Monday.
No Bilski today. 2 possible dates: Thurs the 24th & Monday the 28th.
So far, the Supreme Court has published three decisions this morning. Sorry folks — still no Bilski.
So far, the Supreme Court published two decisions this morning. Sorry folks — still no Bilski.
Nice, Imma sittin in mah office awaiting the show!