This exercise has two parts.
Part I
Please give us your thoughts on the following question: ″Is the Supreme Court′s recent Section 101 doctrine good?″ By recent, we mean Alice/Myriad, which drastically changed the Section 101 landscape. Has the Supreme Court done a good thing, or should Section 101 really encompass ″anything under the sun that is made by man?″ In doing so, here are some things to think about:
– Are software patents bad?
Two criticisms of software patents are there are so many of them that they impede innovation and that they are obsolete by the time the ink dries.
– Are these two arguments contrary to one another?
How can an obsolete patent impede innovation?
– Can you reconcile the two criticisms?
Part II
Additionally, tell us whether you think the following inventions would meet the Section 101 requirement of patentable subject matter in 2-3 sentences each. Please apply the test(s) from Alice (for software/computer inventions) and Myriad (for biological inventions) and other criteria.
– A light bulb
– A genetically engineered bacterium that eats oil in oil spills
– A method of converting binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary code
– Method of accounting involving a particular arrangement of computers
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/09/director-iancu-enough.html
double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and have 1-inch margins