The concurrence's language on 101 is indeed very strong, although not binding; and would appear to thread the needle in a way that allows the few genuinely innovative software patents while throwing out the vast majority of them — an approach the Supreme Court had called for but not provided much guidance on.
Is anyone keeping an actively updated scorecard of the post-Alice 101 rulings? Has *any* internet/software patent survived a post-Alice 101 challenge yet? Luis On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 3:51:58 AM Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Another U.S. software patent bites the dust. > > > > For those of you who are eagerly following the post-*Alice *software > patent situation in the U.S., the attached concurring opinion by Judge > Mayer in *Ultramercial v. Hulu and Wildtangent* will give you heart. For > those of you who are patent attorneys, the concurring opinion will give you > heartburn. > > > > The concurring opinion is attached to this email. The entire decision is > at > http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1544.Opinion.11-12-2014.1.PDF. > > > > > /Larry > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
