Archive for November 19th, 2009
In H&R Block Tax Services v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Services Inc., the court stated that “although tangible in some forms, money is simply a representation of a legal obligation or abstract concept.” A similar sort of attitude seems to be involved in the Bilski case. Both cases involve patents where money is used a unit of measure, and this seems to cause all sorts of confusion to the courts.
Is money just a legal obligation as the court states? The court is incorrect that money is a legal obligation. Money exists separate from a functioning legal system. Money is a medium of exchange that measures the total amount of goods and services that can be traded for a certain amount of money. The court seems to be confused by the legal tender rules, but money existed long before any legal tender laws ever existed.
Subscriber Count
Recent Posts
- Exodus: How the US is Losing Its Most Talented People
- Does 1.6% Growth in Patents Qualify as an Explosion?
- Foundations of Patent Law
- UN to Spend Trillions Trying to Create a Perpetual Motion Machine
- Prometheus Fall Out: The SmartGene Case
- Twitter’s IPA”: The Rise of Trade Secrets and the End of Innovation
- Mark Cuban’s a Mythical Patent Creature
- How Do You Determine if it Makes Economic Sense to File a Patent?
- We’re Number 1, We’re Number 1 in Taxes
- Wall Street Journal Proves its Patent Ignorance
Recent Comments