tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post6180829390551609081..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: SCOTUS Bilski Decision: "Do No Harm"Two-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-10055207910662060552010-07-02T10:43:39.616-05:002010-07-02T10:43:39.616-05:00Peter,
It's hard for this rhinoceros to "...Peter,<br /><br />It's hard for this rhinoceros to "do not harm" when it moves, however cautiously that might be.EGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-30634198080232347622010-07-02T09:49:26.216-05:002010-07-02T09:49:26.216-05:00How about a process patent claim with two elements...How about a process patent claim with two elements: "providing [a prior art drug]" and "informing the patient [about a newly discovered adverse drug-drug interaction]?" In my view, communicating information is not a machine or transformation, but I doubt that it is patentable subject matter in any case.Stemming the Demisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02425545496162715508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1769920222940330512010-06-30T15:55:17.597-05:002010-06-30T15:55:17.597-05:00Compare the thread title "Do No Harm with the...Compare the thread title "<i>Do No Harm</i> with the academic pundits, on certain other blogs, putting forth notions that the past thirty years of jurisprudence is, for all effect, null and void.<br /><br />In other words - Do Maximum Harm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com