[ga] Re: [A2k] Michael Carroll's blog and link to a webcast of "Patentable Subject Matter After the Bilski Oral Argument"

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike and all,

  Thank you for posting this.  

  I am sure that many would or should be interested in listening
to the oral arguments in the link you kindly provided below.  It
would or may be in many's best interest to do so, especially those
whom have now or are planning a web based or partly web based business
of some sort, commercial or non-commercial as some of those business
plans may be in the USPTO's office, or other nations equivelent,
awaiting approval pending the outcome of this case.

  Also all whom are or should be interested would be well
advised to also read all the relevant briefs filed regarding
this case as well.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Palmedo <mpalmedo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Nov 23, 2009 9:54 AM
>To: a2k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [A2k] Michael Carroll's blog and link to a webcast of "Patentable 
>Subject Matter After the Bilski Oral Argument"
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--
>[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/carroll11202009
>
>
>
>Michael Carroll
>
>November 20, 2009
>
>
>
>On Thursday, November, 19, 2009, PIJIP and the Federal Circuit Bar
>Association co-hosted "Patentable Subject Matter After the Bilski Oral
>Argument." Focusing on the recent oral argument in In re Bilski in the
>United States Supreme Court, the event featured counsel for the parties --
>J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, who argued
>for petitioner, and Raymond T. Chen,  Solicitor and Deputy General Counsel
>for respondent, the United States Patent and Trademark Office -- along with
>Dr. Nancy Linck, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck. and Randolph Ross,
>WilmerHale, each counsel for groups of industry amici. The co-moderators
>were Professor Joshua Sarnoff, counsel for amici curiae Law Professors &
>AARP, and Thomas C. Goldstein (WCL '95), counsel for amicus the American Bar
>Association.
>
>
>
>The case has drawn a great deal of interest because it addresses the
>question: What is the proper legal standard for determining whether a kind
>of process is capable of receiving patent protection?  In the decision under
>review, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that to be patentable
>under Section 101 of the Patent Act of 1952, as amended, a process must
>involve use of a machine or a transformation of matter from one thing or
>state to another.
>
>
>
>The audience included viewers of the live webcast from 15 different time
>zones.
>
>
>
>The participants addressed a range of interesting questions.  For example,
>why did the Court take this case now without awaiting further developments
>under the Federal Circuit's new standard?  Michael Jakes believed the
>breadth of the holding and the procedure below attracted the Court's
>attention.  Randolph Moss suggested that not only had the issue of
>patentable processes been thoroughly vetted in the record below, but also,
>the issue falls within the Court's "interesting question" jurisdiction.
>
>
>
>Counsel for amici articulated the main points they hoped the Court took away
>from their briefs and addressed the question of what the range of likely
>holdings from the Court might be.  Participants generally agreed that the
>Court might choose to rule narrowly, affirming the rejection of the patent
>in suit, but only on the ground that it attempted to claim an abstract idea.
>On the other hand, the Court might articulate a standard even more searching
>than the machine-or-transformation test, one that could call into question
>the patentability of some software. Participants agreed that many of the
>Justices appear to be quite concerned about the rapid rise in patenting of
>business method patents.
>
>
>
>To hear the details, and to listen to the lively question and answer session
>- including a question from AIPLA President and former Commissioner of the
>USPTO, Q. Todd Dickinson - click here:
>http://media.wcl.american.edu/Mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=
>ac95d68a5a734ae98122e856efcdbc75
>
>
>
>Mike Palmedo
>
>Assistant Director
>
>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>
>American University Washington College of Law
>
>4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW
>
>Washington, DC 20016
>202-274-4442 | wcl.american.edu/pijip
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>A2k mailing list
>A2k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827