Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:28 UTC
Legal "The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that raises a fundamental question: whether a physician can infringe a patent merely by using scientific research to inform her treatment decisions. Unfortunately, this issue was barely mentioned in Wednesday's arguments. A number of influential organizations had filed briefs warning of the dire consequences of allowing medical patents, but their arguments were largely ignored in the courtroom. Instead, everyone seemed to agree that medical patents were legal in general, and focused on the narrow question of whether the specific patent in the case was overly broad." One day, American policy makers are going to wake up and realise they've made their country irrelevant. The amount of stupidity American policy makers exhibit never ceases to amaze me.
Permalink for comment 499419
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Limitations on Damages
by SlothNinja on Thu 8th Dec 2011 14:08 UTC
SlothNinja
Member since:
2011-03-22

Take a look at 35 U.S.C. 287(C). Basically, it says that certain persons and organizations can infringe a patent due to their medical activities. But despite such infringement there are no damages or injunctive relief available against such persons and organizations. I'm not saying this law applies to the patent at issue here. I haven't bothered to look at it. But, the reality is that many medical related patents aren't worth the paper they are printed on because the only people that are likely to infringe aren't liable for damages.

I've always thought the open source community should be lobbying for a similar limitation on damages for open source software. Much more likely to be enacted than trying to deny patentability to software in general. Sure, get a patent on your software, but you aren't going to collect damages from any open source infringers. Would even provide incentives for releasing software as open source in order to reduce the risk of patent infringement.

Reply Score: 2