Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Another term of the U.S. Supreme Court has come and gone. This year, though as in most years the court issued a lot of decisions that are, in their own several ways, fascinating, is not a year in which THE ONE -- the big case, is immediately obvious. If any one of them is THE stand-out case, the matter will be determined by the jurisprudential historians of posterity. I will leave out of my discussion here and in the next two days the decision regarding Argentina's bond default and the hold-out's recourse, because I have had something to say of that one already. This leaves the following five decisions of great importance. Simply listing by alphabetical order they are: *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank -- patentability *Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund -- class action *Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby -- Obamacare implementation * Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus -- free speech *Town of Greece v. Galloway -- establishment clause. I'll say something about Alice Corp. in...

I wrote here about the Myriad Genetics decision last week . Today, I'll review what everyone else is saying. Stephen Jenei, at Patent Baristas, confined himself to a paraphrase of the decision. Investment bankers are mixed. In the wake of the decision, some upgraded their view of Myriad's prospects, which seems odd. Perhaps it's just the fact that the company has gotten the bad news behind it. Or perhaps it's because in some ways the news could have been worse. Patent Hawk thinks the circuit court decision that the Supreme Court overturned was simply "incompetent." That characterization belies his pen name a bit. The circuit court's own hawkishness does have defenders . At any rate, the phrase "patent hawk" inspired a visual for this blog entry. See above. Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO, had "twenty thoughts on the importance of Myriad." One of these thoughts is a quote from John Duffy to the effect that the decision i...

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued another important decision on the limits of intellectual property law this week. Specifically, it now holds that pieces of the human genome are not patentable when they are identical to the naturally occurring segment. "[A] naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated." The method of isolation would presumably be patentable -- but that wasn't the question before the court. SCOTUS has been returning to its efforts to set limits on the reach of patent law on a fairly regular basis of late. For example, there was the Bilski decision against the patenting of abstract ideas. That was three years ago.  Or a patent decision concerning Stanford University and Roche. Here is my blogged discussion of that  from two years ago. Or the Prometheus decision, from last year . This week adds to that list the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Ge...