Hacker News Reader

It is not. The Privy Council example rebuts one of Greene Energy's arguments. The foundation of the decision is orthogonal to that rebuttal; it's simply that issuance of a patent franchise doesn't turn a public right into private property, and thus what the USPTO giveth, the USPTO can taketh away.

View on HN

I’m not disagreeing with the majority decision, just the argument for originalism.

The argument against anything else is that they all turn the court into a policy making body in various forms, instead of trying to stay as objective about interpretation as they can.

Whether that's good or bad depends on your view.

Objective and originalist are different things, and the constitution has never been immutable, hence the large number of amendments.

I think this was a tactic by the defenders of IPR, rather than some deeply-held belief. We have at least four self-styled originalists (but see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422048) on the Court, and they want to hear arguments about what 18th Century politicians thought about patent rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com