[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
To: Gilman Research Services <ngilman@gilmanresearch.com>
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] The New Yorker on Business Method Patents
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:27:29 +0200 (CEST)

>  http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030714ta_talk_surowiecki

An interesting text in many ways.

In one point it seems to confuse things.  The text says that the State
Street Decision of 1998 changed fundamentally how business methods were
treated in the US.

That is wrong.  What can be said is that "State Street" fuelled a business
method hype by making it unambiguously clear that such patents are
welcome.  But applications such as Amazon One Click and most others do not
owe their granting to the State Street doctrine.

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
155,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/

The New Yorker on Business Method Patents, Gilman Research Services
- Re: [Patents] The New Yorker on Business Method Patents, Hartmut Pilch

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)