He found that the rule constituted a "substantive" change to patent law, and the law "does not vest the USPTO with any general substantive rulemaking power." Lifesciences firms, including device companies, and inventors had opposed the rules because they could have diminished the value of patents, which account for much of the value of lifesciences firms, especially startup device companies. High-tech firms had supported them because they were intended to speed up the PTO's decision-making process and stop abuses of the system. Glaxo argued that the PTO already has other means by which to stop abuses. UPDATE: The PTO is considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.