Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada

+ - Canada's highest court to rule on business methods-> 3

Submitted by ciaran_o_riordan
ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "After last month's unfortunate ruling by Canada's Federal Court that Amazon's 1-click shopping idea could be patented, the Commissioner of Patents and the Attorney General of Canada have filed notice to Amazon.com inc (respondent) that an "appeal will be heard by the [Federal Court of Appeal] at a time and place fixed by the Judicial Administrator", probably Ottawa. This case, called Canada's Bilski, has been in the works since Amazon filed their patent application all the way back in 1998. Just like Bilski, the object of this case is what subject matter is and isn't patentable — a question which will create crucial case law, making participation in this case important. Anyone looking for more background, particularly those interested in helping to prepare an amicus brief for this case, is welcome at ESP's wiki page."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada's highest court to rule on business methods

Comments Filter:
  • In the title, rather than "Canada's highest court", it should say "Canada's Federal Court".

    Sorry for the mistake. Canada also has a "Supreme Court", which is higher, but no one talks about it in relation to patents for some reason.

    • That doesn't change that this is a very important case. The lawyer communities are talking about it, but it's unfortunately slipping past the tech community.

      In the USA, there are two "high" courts: CAFC then Supreeme.

      In Canada, it turns out there are three: Federal, Federal Court of Appeal, Supreme.

      So this is a bit higher than the CAFC is in the USA, and the CAFC handed down cases such as:

      * In re Alappat
      * State Street v. Signature Financial Group
      * KSR v. Teleflex
      * Microsoft v. AT&T
      * In re Bilski (2008)

      • Just to be clear:

        The appeal that will be heard will be in the "Federal Court of Appeal", which is separate from the "Federal Court" (responsible for October ruling). The full name is a bit long to go in the story title, so I guess "Federal court" is enough.

        In any case, the story blurb explains that the previous ruling was from the "Federal Court" and that this appeal is being heard in the "Federal Court of Appeal", so no one can get confused.

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.

Working...