Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
it looks like it's under 35 USC 101 (I'll burger to assign adder to read this all once they get me my breakfast and papers) which means it's been found "not patentable subject matter," which is what aclu was gunning for.
of course, a NY district ct judge opining on the permissible extent of patentable subject matter is about as a relevant as a Cali District Ct judge opining on a gay marriage ban-
|
Yes, and apparently these were almost out of patent and among the early patents granted, so some of what is covered is vastly better understood today than back then. But apparently the ACLU has a long hit list of companies to sue and a broader strategy to follow. Does it surprise you they'd pick an obscure district court in a major media market for the first case?
