Editing AME 44590 Homework, Summer 2011 (section)

=Due Thursday 2 June 2011=
The reading for today is two more cases on patentable subject matter.  Note they are both from the CAFC, not the Supreme Court.
* [[Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (1992)]]
* [[State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998)]]
If we have time, which I think we will, we will split into two groups to have a debate on whether computer programs and business methods should be patentable.  A good way to prepare for that would be to have ready what the fundamental principles are that seem to be the distinction between patentable processes and not, and also what arguments can be made that software and business methods should or should not be patentable to the extent that they promote the progress of science and the useful arts.