The Supreme Court is considering the validity of business method patents, but there's a more fundamental question for entrepreneurs: should one exercise one's patent rights?
Bilski v. Kappos decision does little to quiet a fierce debate on the value and harm of such patents raging in the business and academic worlds, Stanford Law fellow Larry Downes writes.
The court rejects one particular patent but doesn't provide new guidance about what types of business methods and software are patentable.
The Supreme Court decision affirming the $240 million judgment against Microsoft for violating i4i's XML patent highlights the broken technology-patent system, especially for software.
Look for Brian Tong's new movement on Facebook: pain-ray-free produce. But the rest of us actually think it's kind of cool that the government pain-ray has been re-tasked to warm freezing plants. Also, the Supreme Court has finally ruled in the Bilski patent case, giving us a relatively non-destructive moderate decision. ACTA is ramping up again, and we make a date to go see "The Social Network."
Patents inhibit software innovation, and the software industry doesn't need them, but disarmament is unlikely. What can we do about them? WikiPatents is a start.
IBM argues that patents have fueled open source's success, but its own history belies this claim.
Software and Internet companies are closely eyeing appeals court case that could affect the way they do business. Some are using it as a platform to bash or promote software patents.
Case raises questions about the patentability of business method patents, says CNET Blog Network contributor Matt Wermager.
Hey, here's a thought: a free, open-source video codec that could be universally portable and playable. I'd vote for that, wouldn't you? In other news of the day, Dash stops making hardware to focus on software.