I'm disappointed by the EFF's stance here: it simply isn't strong enough.
I'm in the camp that believes there shouldn't be software patents period. Simple as that.
As for ending the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on patent case appeals, I assume this is because that court has frequently been overly friendly to patent plaintiff claims. Some might argue it's gone so far as regulatory capture. What's more, the court has repeatedly been overturned by the SCOTUS.
That's a fair argument but what they're forgetting was that the USCoAftFC was introduced to solve a problem. We have the problem now that there is inconsistent treatment of patent cases in Federal district courts, leading plaintiffs to file cases in "friendly" jurisdictions, most notably East Texas.
Prior to 1982, you had the same problem at the appeals level and you had a rush to file appeals in friendly jurisdictions. This court was certainly intended to provide consistent treatment of patent cases and--ideally--allow for experts in patent law to handle such cases.
But the fact that this court has really had trouble finding a patent they didn't like is a sideshow: the real problem here is software patents.
You can't patent a mathematical formula and as anyone with any kind of Computer Science education could tell you, an algorithm is essentially indistinguishable from a mathematical function. The fact that the US courts have ignored this or simply been unable to comprehend it is at the root of the problem.
This is what is supposed to be true in Europe: software "as such" can not be patented. The issue we have is that corrupted patent organizations such as the EPO twisted the "as such" so much that they managed to reverse the original meaning (ie. you can not patent a software "as such", but patenting its use inside of a computer is legit - I love lawyers)
I'm in the camp that believes there shouldn't be software patents period. Simple as that.
As for ending the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on patent case appeals, I assume this is because that court has frequently been overly friendly to patent plaintiff claims. Some might argue it's gone so far as regulatory capture. What's more, the court has repeatedly been overturned by the SCOTUS.
That's a fair argument but what they're forgetting was that the USCoAftFC was introduced to solve a problem. We have the problem now that there is inconsistent treatment of patent cases in Federal district courts, leading plaintiffs to file cases in "friendly" jurisdictions, most notably East Texas.
Prior to 1982, you had the same problem at the appeals level and you had a rush to file appeals in friendly jurisdictions. This court was certainly intended to provide consistent treatment of patent cases and--ideally--allow for experts in patent law to handle such cases.
But the fact that this court has really had trouble finding a patent they didn't like is a sideshow: the real problem here is software patents.
You can't patent a mathematical formula and as anyone with any kind of Computer Science education could tell you, an algorithm is essentially indistinguishable from a mathematical function. The fact that the US courts have ignored this or simply been unable to comprehend it is at the root of the problem.