The Supreme Court overturned a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that hears appeals in patent cases, which had ruled earlier this year that injunctions should be granted as a "general rule."

A patent holder, the Supreme Court ruled, must prove four facts: that it has suffered an "irreparable injury"; that there are no other adequate legal remedies; that taking into account the balance of harm to both parties, an injunction is warranted; and that the public interest would not be hurt by an injunction.

This is a good ruling. The public interest in access to the technology should not be hurt by an injunction. The law, optimally, should enable only reasonable license fees to be obtained. A patent is a legal privledge intended to serve the public interest, its not a private property right as argued by this jackass.

Robust economic performance depends on strong protection of property rights from invasion without and the enforcement of voluntary contracts between parties.

I could not disagree more. This isn't even well put (without?!). Keeping important technologies off the market place or making them prohibitively expensive to employ prevents technological evolution that has a far greater impact on overall economic performance then these free contractual relationships. This is where I have a bone to pick with people who are so libertarian that they have no problem with monopolies. Technological development, and not the market, creates the efficiencies that contribute to your standard of living. The market is useful in so far as it creates an environment that incents creative innovation and ensures that those innovations are actually used and can be built upon. The problem with centrally controlled economies is that they inhibit innovation. If free markets are not kept competitive and someone ends up holding all of the cards, they become just like centrally controlled economies in that you have to get permission from the card holder in order to change things, and the card holder has a disincentive to change. The result is technological and, ultimately, economic stagnation.