Supreme Court to tackle Citizens United, Bilski

Reuters noted of the "Citizens United" case , to be reviewed by the US Supreme Court:

The court heard arguments in the campaign finance case in a special session last month. The conservatives appeared ready to rule that corporate spending limits for federal campaigns violated the free-speech rights of businesses.

But look at the lineup: Floyd Abrams, noted Democrat, is arguing the so-called conservative line. The NYT put the issue as: "The question in the case, which centers on the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” is whether the government may ban political speech by corporations that concerns candidates during campaign season."

See also the IPBiz post
"Citizens United": like patent reform, you need a scorecard

Of patent reform, the NYT wrote of the Bilski case:

The case that has most transfixed the business community is Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, a patent dispute that addresses the consequential question of whether intangible business methods may be patented. A federal appeals court last year rejected Bernard L. Bilski’s attempt to patent a method of hedging risks in commodities trading, ruling that only processes tied to a particular machine or capable of transforming an object into something different can be patented.

The Supreme Court could go beyond the approach of the CAFC.

In its coverage of important cases, yahoo.news did NOT mention either of Citizens United or Bilski. It did however mention American Needle v. National Football League, which is "sort of" related to trademark licensing, in particular illustrating the importance of "who is" the licensor as to anti-trust issues. Where is Kenesaw Mountain Landis?

[and recall the 1922 decision (259 US 200) that the antitrust laws do not apply to professional baseball because baseball is not a business engaged in interstate commerce)

NYT: New Court Term Hints at Views on Regulating Business