Beyond Invention: Patent as Knowledge Law

Preprint OPEN
Madison, Michael;
(2017)

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos, concerning the legal standard for determining patentable subject matter under the American Patent Act, is used as a starting point for a brief review of historical, philosophical, and cultural i... View more
  • References (26)
    26 references, page 1 of 3

    1 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

    2 See, e.g., Allen Newell, Response, The Models Are Broken, The Models Are Broken!, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 1023, 1034-35 (1986); Pamela Samuelson, Randall Davis, Mitchell D. Kapor & J.H. Reichman, A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308, 2310 (1994).

    3 See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972) (ruling that a mathematical “algorithm” represented in a computer program did not constitute a patentable process).

    4 LE CORBUSIER, TOWARD AN ARCHITECTURE 151 (John Goodman trans., 2007) (1923).

    18 See DANIEL J. BOORSTIN, THE CREATORS: A HISTORY OF HEROES OF THE IMAGINATION 524-27 (1992).

    19 See PAMELA H. SMITH, THE BODY OF THE ARTISAN: ART AND EXPERIENCE IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 59-85 (2004).

    20 E.g., Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

    21 See id. (treating the “skilled artisan” and the “person of ordinary skill in the art” as synonyms). The term PHOSITA comes from the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).

    22 SMITH, supra note 19, at 59.

    47 See, e.g., Christopher A. Cotropia & James Gibson, The Upside of Intellectual Property's Downside, 57 UCLA L. REV. 921, 921 (2010) (arguing that the output limiting effects of intellectual property law can be used to suppress the production of socially harmful information).

  • Metrics
Share - Bookmark

  • Download from
    LawArXiv via LawArXiv (Preprint, 2017)
  • Cite this publication