This is from Tim Lee of the Washington Post:
This spring, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the patentability of software for the first time in a generation. In the 1970s, the high court placed strict rules on software-related patents. But since then, a lower court has effectively overruled the Supreme Court's precedents, allowing hundreds of thousands of legally dubious software patents to be approved.
...
... rightly or wrongly, the Patent Office has issued hundreds of thousands of software patents since 1998. Those patents are worth billions of dollars to companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle. The [Supreme Court] justices will be reluctant to write an opinion that could decimate the patent arsenals of some of America's wealthiest companies.
But Richard Stern, the Justice Department lawyer who successfully urged the Supreme Court to limit software patents in the 1970s, argues that these considerations shouldn't deter the Supreme Court from upholding the law. "When you make your business model on the basis of what is clearly a wrong interpretation of the law, you don't get a vested interest," he says.
I asked this before, but I'll ask it again: If the Supreme Court invalidates some or all software patents, will non-U.S. patent holders push for trade and investment claims in response?
