News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on White House responds to Patent Petition. Parent comment

Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by anigbrowl on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @05:47PM (#3184292)
Astonishingly, people have been known to disagree about what the Supreme Court's holdings mean. You keep bringing up the same set of cases, but I don't agree with your analysis. Why? Because it seems to me that some of the time you're relying on the SC's dicta rather than its holding, and only the holding really counts; and furthermore, you seem oblivious to questions about standards of review and so forth.

If the circuit courts were flouting the judgment of the Supreme Court as blatantly as you allege, how come the Supreme Court hasn't granted certiorari on a suitably iconic case and reiterated its judgment in even clearer terms? It's not like there is any rule that prevents that, a grant of certiorari only requires 4 justices to sign on.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by brlewis on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @09:15PM (#3184929)
I don't think the Supreme Court wants to reiterate its judgement in even clearer terms. They said even in Benson that they felt Congress should clarify the whole business.

I laid out clearly why I think what I think about Benson, Flook and Diehr in http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2011-07-28 and I have yet to see a similar outlay of the arguments for an opposing view.

If I've neglected a question about standards of review, I apologize. Please repeat it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by anigbrowl on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @11:41PM (#3185298)
We discussed this in September, but I just now see you left me another reply(though I don't think it alters the argument that much): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031449

I'm on my phone at the moment and don't really have the time to write a long article in any case; but in a nutshell I think you are making too many assumptions about the meaning of the SCs words without considering their meaning as legal terms of art.

[ Parent | on HN ]