[Jagermonster]

For those of you who don't know, the Supreme Court has caused major difficulties for inventors seeking patents in the software and biotech realms. The interview-ee in this article points out that this is largely due to the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, rather than applying the statute as written.

[Artemis Webb]

yawn

[2harddrive]

Of COURSE the U.S. Extreme Court is acting ILLEGALLY! What ELSE is new? *Sigh.*

[Yo-Yo]

Could courts become persuaded that judicial exceptions to statutes are now disfavored by the Supreme Court as being outside the authority of the Judiciary?

HA, BLOODY HA! Judicial exceptions to statutes are the bread and butter of the Federal Activist Judiciary, going as far back as the school desegregation/mandatory busing cases of the 1970s.

[Agatsu77]

You just now learned this?

[unlearner]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 – [Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

First, patents are, by their very nature, a forfeiting of natural rights of individuals to use all available knowledge in arts and sciences. We, free people, agree to abrogate our natural rights in this arena, surrendering them to the will of Congress, for the greater benefit of all through progress in art and science.

Second, “discoveries” in the article is limited to “inventions” because the context is discoveries by INVENTORS. Inventors do not invent genes. Scientific researchers may discover genes and mechanisms of nature, but they do not invent them because there is nothing NOVEL about such discoveries. It is a crime against nature and a basic deprivation of human rights to allow individuals or corporations to patent things which naturally occur in nature. In order to be patentable, such discoveries should be turned into inventions which are both NOVEL and NON-OBVIOUS.

Third, while the Constitution does not specify a time limit, it does say for a “LIMITED TIME.” When patent law allows perpetual patents for things like operating systems, it is a violation of the Constitution and fundamental natural rights. There must be a reasonable time limit of patents and other intellectual property designed to not only reward innovation but to also benefit society which has voluntarily (in theory) surrendered its collective natural rights for some perceived or actual benefits we all receive due to the progress of science and the arts.

Intellectual property law MUST not only reward innovation but also enable “progress” that benefits everyone, because everyone is giving up a natural right in exchange for intellectual property protections for inventors.

[hadit2here]

“She is a former Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel for GlaxoSmithKline, where she led the charge...”

Yeah, as much as I don’t like judicial activism or a congress being bought off by special interests, I really don’t think I’d want to go along with someone who was the litigationist and lobbyist for GSK. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Litigating on the one hand, and stuffing piles of $$ to congresspukes with the other. Yeah, real ethicist.