Digital Majority - new forum threads http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/start Threads in forums of the site "Digital Majority" Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:45:29 +0000 http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-288243 U.S. Supreme Court to hear i4i patent case against Microsoft http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-288243/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-i4i-patent-case-against-microsoft The U.S. top court has agreed to review a patent infringement case filed against Microsoft by Toronto-based i4i Ltd. Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:22:46 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The U.S. top court has agreed to review a patent infringement case filed against Microsoft by Toronto-based i4i Ltd. – a case that Microsoft lost both initially in court and subsequently on appeal. […] Microsoft’s appeal to the top court essentially asks the court to consider setting a less-stringent standard for invalidating a patent. Currently, companies in Microsoft’s position are required to show “clear and convincing” evidence to invalidate a U.S. patent.
Microsoft argues that the current system disproportionately favours patent holders in some cases."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/microsoft-appeal-on-i4i-patent-headed-to-us-supreme-court/article1817427/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-276802 NZ-OSS: Debating Software Patents with Brett Roberts http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-276802/nz-oss:debating-software-patents-with-brett-roberts Summary (and YouTube links) of a debate on software patents in New Zealand: "I argued that software patents stifle innovation. When ideas are copied, extended, built upon - we all benefit. Patents stop this and thus stifle innovation. He argued that patents not necessary to protect industries based on ideas e.g. publishing because copyright does a good job. He pointed to the negative impacts of software patents such as the Android litigation which is stifling competition." Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:55:37 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[Summary (and YouTube links) of a debate on software patents in New Zealand]: "I argued that software patents stifle innovation. When ideas are copied, extended, built upon - we all benefit. Patents stop this and thus stifle innovation. He argued that patents not necessary to protect industries based on ideas e.g. publishing because copyright does a good job. He pointed to the negative impacts of software patents such as the Android litigation which is stifling competition."

Source: http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2010/debating-software-patents-brett-roberts

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-274980 EurActiv: EU to push patent-free eGovernment http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-274980/euractiv:eu-to-push-patent-free-egovernment The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws. [The BSA is] worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids. Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:07:02 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws. [The BSA is] worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids."

Source: http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-273057 Wikileaks publishes documents on plan to curb free software in the European Union http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-273057/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan-to-curb-free-software [The leaked] file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union. Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:25:00 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[The leaked] file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union.
What makes this document fascinating is that it contains both the original and modified text (…), which means that we can see what exactly an organisation sympathetic to Microsoft –and partly funded by them– is worried about, and how it is trying to head off the threat."

Source: http://blog.javier-carrete.com/2010/10/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan.html

The leaked file is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38773615/Towards-a-European-Software-Strategy

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272792 MultichannelNews: U.S. Patent Office Affirms TiVo 'Time Warp' Patent Is Valid http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272792/multichannelnews:u-s-patent-office-affirms-tivo-time-warp-pa The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday affirmed the validity of TiVo's so-called Time Warp DVR patent, reversing the agency's ruling this summer -- after a second re-examination requested by EchoStar and Dish Network -- that the patent was invalid because some of the claims were covered in two prior patents. Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:53:04 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday affirmed the validity of TiVo's so-called Time Warp DVR patent, reversing the agency's ruling this summer — after a second re-examination requested by EchoStar and Dish Network — that the patent was invalid because some of the claims were covered in two prior patents."

Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/458133-U_S_Patent_Office_Affirms_TiVo_Time_Warp_Patent_Is_Valid.php?

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272791 Ars: Motorola asks ITC, two federal courts to throw book at Apple http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272791/ars:motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-ap Motorola has launched the next offensive in an increasingly confusing legal war over mobile patents. The company, through its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, has filed patent infringement complaints against Apple in both Northern Illinois and Southern Florida federal district courts. It has also asked the International Trade Commission to block Apple from importing, marketing, or selling iPhones, iPad, iPod touches, and "some Mac products." Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:51:00 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Motorola has launched the next offensive in an increasingly confusing legal war over mobile patents. The company, through its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, has filed patent infringement complaints against Apple in both Northern Illinois and Southern Florida federal district courts. It has also asked the International Trade Commission to block Apple from importing, marketing, or selling iPhones, iPad, iPod touches, and "some Mac products."
Motorola's four complaints involve a total of 18 patents, which the company says covers everything from 3G, GPRS, and 802.11 technologies, antenna design, proximity sensing, device synchronization, and more. Motorola also says that everything from the hardware on up to iOS, MobileMe, and the App Store infringes upon its patented innovations."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272362 e http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272362/e e Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:43:13 +0000 Rigelnetworks 554658 e

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272199 Ars: Cover Flow may cost Apple $208.5 million in damages http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272199/ars:cover-flow-may-cost-apple-208-5-million-in-damages Apple has been ordered to pay more than $200 million to Mirror Worlds, LLC after having lost a patent infringement case brought by the company. Apple was found to be in violation of Mirror Worlds' "document streaming" patents, which Apple allegedly used in its implementation of Cover Flow and Time Machine. Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:26:47 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Apple has been ordered to pay more than $200 million to Mirror Worlds, LLC after having lost a patent infringement case brought by the company. Apple was found to be in violation of Mirror Worlds' "document streaming" patents, which Apple allegedly used in its implementation of Cover Flow and Time Machine."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/apple-loses-patent-infringement-suit-over-cover-flow-display.ars

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272024 TechDirt: Why Must Patent Supporters Rewrite History In Attempt To Have The Feds Subsidize Patents http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272024/techdirt:why-must-patent-supporters-rewrite-history-in-attem Hank Northhaft is the CEO of a patent licensing firm. [...] He [...] has been making the rounds writing opinion pieces for various publications pitching this plan. Unfortunately, each of his opinion pieces seems to rewrite history or misinterpret studies to make his argument. Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:05:37 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Hank Northhaft is the CEO of a patent licensing firm. […] He's got a book coming out next year that's all about making it even easier and cheaper to get patents, which he insists will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs, and has been making the rounds writing opinion pieces for various publications pitching this plan. Unfortunately, each of his opinion pieces seems to rewrite history or misinterpret studies to make his argument.
Mike Masnick points out the fallacies and omissions in Northhaft's arguments."

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/03493510551/why-must-patent-supporters-rewrite-history-in-attempt-to-have-the-feds-subsidize-patents.shtml

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-271789 Ars: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-271789/ars:microsoft-sues-motorola-citing-android-patent-infringeme Microsoft has announced a lawsuit against Motorola, alleging that several of the mobile company's Android devices infringe on nine of its patents. The software giant is suing in US District Court in Washington, and is also bringing a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The patents are all related to key smartphone experiences that include syncing e-mails, calendars, and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power. Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:18:44 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Microsoft has announced a lawsuit against Motorola, alleging that several of the mobile company's Android devices infringe on nine of its patents. The software giant is suing in US District Court in Washington, and is also bringing a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The patents are all related to key smartphone experiences that include syncing e-mails, calendars, and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power. Microsoft specifically names two Motorola devices, the Droid 2 and the Charm, but says these are just examples and not a comprehensive list. "

Source: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues-motorola-citing-android-patent-infringement.ars

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-270231 Florian Mueller: Red Hat's financials are an argument for software patents http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-270231/florian-mueller:red-hat-s-financials-are-an-argument-for-sof Mueller "can't help but admit that Red Hat's financials can serve as a fairly strong argument for software patents." He goes on the claim that "Red Hat's business model does more harm than good" and expresses his belief that "that Red Hat's model is the antithesis of economically sustainable innovation." Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:05:40 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[Mueller feels he] can't help but admit that Red Hat's financials can serve as a fairly strong argument for software patents.''
He states that "Red Hat's business model does more harm than good" due to the large cost-savings it offers compared to proprietary vendors. (Mueller cites a "destruction ratio" of 1:10, meaning that 1$ revenue of RedHat replaces 10$ of proprietary revenue.) From current levels of R&D-spending-as-a-fraction-of-revenue, Mueller concludes that "the net balance would be a loss of $6.5 to $7.0 billion in R&D, and of all of the high-quality jobs this relates to.''
He waves away the argument that the money such saved by the customers of Red hat might be allocated in more promising ways by claiming that these billions would simply mean "less innovation" and consequently Red Hat's customers "wouldn't be able to become as productive" as if they would keep funding the monopoly profits of Microsoft, Oracle, SAP & Co. Calling Red Hat's business model "parasitic" and "the antithesis of economically sustainable innovation" completes the argumentflame bait.

Source: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/09/red-hats-financials-are-argument-for.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-270217 Groklaw: An Open Response to the USPTO — Physical Aspects of Mathematics http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-270217/groklaw:an-open-response-to-the-uspto-physical-aspects-of-ma The USPTO has issued a request for comments on their new interim guidance [...]. They ask in effect how to tell an abstract idea from an application of the idea. This article (by Groklaw member PoIR) suggests answers to that question from the perspective of a computer professional. Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:12:17 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The USPTO has issued a request for comments on their new interim guidance […]. They ask in effect how to tell an abstract idea from an application of the idea. This article suggests answers to that question from the perspective of a computer professional. "

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010092621054289

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269627 Nature: Patent fixes for Europe http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269627/nature:patent-fixes-for-europe The continent's patent system is Byzantine, but current proposals for a new EU-wide patent could make matters worse, warns Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and calls for a more US-like unified patent system in Europe. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:21:10 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The current two-layer European patent system hinders the growth of creative institutions and ventures by being costly, inefficient and unpredictable. Patents granted by one layer, the European Patent Office (EPO), must actually be ratified in the second layer — the national level in one or several of the 27 EU countries. This makes a European patent five to twenty times more expensive than a US one […]
Parallel litigation regularly leads to conflicting outcomes in different countries, a degree of complexity and uncertainty that constitutes a serious barrier to start-up companies.
[…] the EU patent proposals could result in a worse system than the current one. To really fuel innovation, the European ministers for economic affairs, industry and science who are preparing to meet at the EU Competitiveness Council later this year must fix the following issues, which are far more important than what gets translated into what.
First, the current European patent should be phased-out by 2015 and be replaced by a true EU patent, recognized in all 27 countries at granting. […]
Second, there should be a grace period of at least six months in which scientific or technical publications would not preclude patentability of an invention. […]
Third, there should be a 50% discount on EPO entry fees for young innovative companies, as in the United States and Japan. […]
Fourth, there needs to be a radical shake-up of the governance of the European patent system. The number of NPO representatives on the EPO board should be reduced […]. Representatives of the key directorates of the EC should sit on the EPO board […]."

Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/467395a.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269507 EFF: Patent Office Agrees With EFF’s Arguments on C2 VoIP Patent http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269507/eff:patent-office-agrees-with-effs-arguments-on-c2-voip-pate Continued good news in the fight to bust bad software patents: the Patent Office has issued an encouraging office action in the reexamination of the C2 patent, one of EFF's "Most Wanted" patents. The C2 patent claims to cover a “Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System,” broad enough to essentially wholesale claim using the Internet to call someone’s phone. The Patent Office has agreed with many of the arguments EFF put forth in its petition for reexamination, and preliminarily found the C2 patent invalid as obvious. Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:48:31 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Continued good news in the fight to bust bad software patents: the Patent Office has issued an encouraging office action in the reexamination of the C2 patent, one of EFF's "Most Wanted" patents. The C2 patent claims to cover a “Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System,” broad enough to essentially wholesale claim using the Internet to call someone’s phone.
The Patent Office has agreed with many of the arguments EFF put forth in its petition for reexamination, and preliminarily found the C2 patent invalid as obvious. "

Source: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/patent-office-agrees-eff-s-arguments-c2-voip

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269506 271 Patent Blog: Bombshell Study: Heavily Litigated NPE Patents Overwhelmingly Lose at Trial http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-269506/271-patent-blog:bombshell-study:heavily-litigated-npe-patent John Allison, Mark Lemley and Joshua Walker recently took on the task of identifying every patent that was litigated eight or more times between 2000 and February 2009, [...] and compared the outcomes of the cases against patents that were litigated only once. [...] What did they find? Serial patent litigants, and particularly NPE's (aka "trolls"), [...] "get creamed" when they go to trial. Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:47:24 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "To date, litigated patents were viewed as "strong" patents - the types that defendants were supposed to avoid taking to trial. Moreover, litigated patents were seen as more valuable […]
John Allison, Mark Lemley and Joshua Walker recently took on the task of identifying every patent that was litigated eight or more times between 2000 and February 2009, including cases still pending, and compared the outcomes of the cases against patents that were litigated only once. In the course of their analysis, they found 106 such patents, which have been litigated in a total of 2,987 different patent assertions in 478 different cases, often against multiple defendants.
What did they find? Serial patent litigants, and particularly NPE's (aka "trolls"), for a lack of a better phrase, "get creamed" when they go to trial: […] 'No matter which test we use, the differences are highly statistically significant – the most-litigated patentees were more likely to lose'."

Source: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/09/bombshell-study-heavily-litigated-npe.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-260859 Transcript: Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-260859/transcript:andrew-tridgell-on-patent-defence The following is a transcript of a talk given in New Zealand, 2010. Andrew Tridgell discusses why reading patents is usually a good idea, how to read a patent, and how to work through it with a lawyer to build a solid defence. For the free software community, Tridgell also suggests how cooperation could help scare off patent holders. Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:49:53 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The following is a transcript of a talk given in New Zealand, 2010. Andrew Tridgell discusses why reading patents is usually a good idea, how to read a patent, and how to work through it with a lawyer to build a solid defence. For the free software community, Tridgell also suggests how cooperation could help scare off patent holders. "

Source: http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-256802 PriorArt: What's so bad about "business method" patents? A case study http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-256802/priorart:what-s-so-bad-about-business-method-patents-a-case In Marshall, Texas, a patent that seems to cover the act of distributing a press release online (No. 6,370,535) was used to sue six companies that are in that business; [...] The business proposition of eReleases, one of the defendants, is simple: For a one-time fee of $399, eReleases distributes press releases [...] [f]or an additional fee, Kennedy will write a release. [...] the [patent] application wasn't even filed until 1999—a year after he started his business. After a few hours’ online research, Kennedy found no less than 20 companies involved in the press release business before the filing date of the patent. Unfortunately, presenting that evidence in court would require him to pay those six-figure legal bills. Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:06:48 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "In Marshall, Texas, a patent that seems to cover the act of distributing a press release online (No. 6,370,535) was used to sue six companies that are in that business; […] The business proposition of eReleases, one of the defendants, is simple: For a one-time fee […] eReleases distributes press releases […] [f]or an additional fee, [it] will write a release. […] the [patent] application wasn't even filed until 1999—a year after he started his business. After a few hours’ online research, Kennedy found no less than 20 companies involved in the press release business before the filing date of the patent. Unfortunately, presenting that evidence in court would require him to pay those six-figure legal bills."

Source: http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/07/gooseberry-natural-resources-patents-press-releases.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-256800 Law.com: Patent Litigation Weekly: Data Shows That Troll Problem Persists http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-256800/law-com:patent-litigation-weekly:data-shows-that-troll-probl Let's start with what everyone knows--NPE patent litigation isn't going away. Since 2007, more than 1,500 companies per year are hit with lawsuits brought by the more than 300 NPEs [...]. NPE litigation has grown from where it accounted for between 2 to 3 percent of all patent suits a decade ago to the point that it now accounts for 17 percent . For some operating companies, NPE litigation makes up more than 90 percent of their patent litigation docket. Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:52:12 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Let's start with what everyone knows—NPE patent litigation isn't going away. Since 2007, more than 1,500 companies per year are hit with lawsuits brought by the more than 300 NPEs that PatentFreedom track (using its fairly conservative definition of what constitutes an NPE). NPE litigation has grown from where it accounted for between 2 to 3 percent of all patent suits a decade ago to the point that it now accounts for 17 percent . For some operating companies, NPE litigation makes up more than 90 percent of their patent litigation docket."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202464087434&Patent_Litigation_Weekly_Data_Shows_That_Troll_Problem_Persists

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254815 Apple among 36 companies targeted in e-mail spam patent suit http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254815/apple-among-36-companies-targeted-in-e-mail-spam-patent-suit A new lawsuit filed this week has accused Apple, Google and numerous others of patent infringement, alleging that the companies are improperly profiting from spam filtering technology created by InNova. [...] The suit deals with U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761, related to technology that is used to differentiate between regular e-mail messages and unwanted advertising spam. Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:48:49 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "A new lawsuit filed this week has accused Apple, Google and numerous others of patent infringement, alleging that the companies are improperly profiting from spam filtering technology created by InNova. The complaint was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall.
The suit deals with U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761, related to technology that is used to differentiate between regular e-mail messages and unwanted advertising spam."

Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/21/apple_among_36_companies_targeted_in_e_mail_spam_patent_suit.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254468 Patently-O: Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254468/patently-o:patenting-by-entrepreneurs:the-berkeley-patent-su Our third major finding concerns startup executives' perceptions of the effectiveness of patents and other methods of providing competitive advantage. Interestingly, responses vary widely (see Fig. 2 below). Biotechnology companies rate patents as the most effective means of capturing competitive advantage, more effective than first-mover advantage (though the differences are not statistically significant), trade secrecy, reverse engineering, copyright, and other means. Software companies, on the other hand, rank patenting dead last in providing competitive advantage. Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:29:35 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Why do entrepreneurs and startup companies file for patents? Why not? How often do startups acquire patents from others? How important are patents in fostering innovation at startups? In helping them raise financing? In providing leverage in cross-licensing negotiations? Are entrepreneurs and startups subject to patent thickets? These and many related questions were the subject of the Berkeley Patent Survey—the most comprehensive survey to date in the United States, probably worldwide, on how patents are used by and affect entrepreneurs, startups, and early-stage high technology companies.
[…] First, startups hold many more patents and applications than previously believed. […]
Second, startups report that they primarily file for patents to prevent against copying of their innovative products and services. […]
Our third major finding concerns startup executives' perceptions of the effectiveness of patents and other methods of providing competitive advantage. Interestingly, responses vary widely (see Fig. 2 below). Biotechnology companies rate patents as the most effective means of capturing competitive advantage, more effective than first-mover advantage (though the differences are not statistically significant), trade secrecy, reverse engineering, copyright, and other means. Software companies, on the other hand, rank patenting dead last in providing competitive advantage. "

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/07/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-i-of-iii-1.html

Here are part II and part III of the survey:

"Our fourth major result is that our respondents—particularly software companies—find the high costs of patenting and enforcing their patents deter them from filing for patents on their innovations. […]
Last, we asked how much of a role patents play in the steps of the innovation process, […]. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses on the whole are rather tepid. For instance, biotechnology companies report that patents provide closer to a "moderate" than a "strong" incentive to engage in the innovation process. Among software companies, the results are even more striking, with them reporting that patents provide less than a "slight" incentive."

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/07/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-ii-of-iii.html

"We acknowledge that our analysis to date of the study results do not allow us to say one way or the other whether the views of the executives accurately reflect the economics of the patent system. Thus, it would be wrong to conclude […] that one of the key findings of our study is that patents "play essentially no role in fostering innovation among startup companies … outside biotech and other limited areas." In the same fashion, it may also be wrong to conclude that […] the reality is that patents play a major role in promoting innovation. […] As such, we come to no conclusions in this article regarding the actual role patents play in fostering startup innovation (or not). […] The data, however, present an interesting paradox: If executives believe that patents provide relatively weak incentives to innovate, why are so many startup firms seeking them?"

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/07/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-iii-of-iii.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254467 Packt Publishing Offers New Discounts on Multiple Purchases http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-254467/packt-publishing-offers-new-discounts-on-multiple-purchases These discounts apply to orders of any books, and can be redeemed by ordering multiple copies of the same book, or through a number of different titles. The discounts are automatically applied in your cart, which means that obtaining bulk-buy discounts is a simple process. Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:52:56 +0000 BrittoP 522843 Packt, publisher of specialist IT books, has today announced the launch of new discounts for any orders of multiple books. Visitors to www.PacktPub.com who purchase 2-4 books will automatically receive an 18% discount, while those who purchase 5-10 books will receive 20% off of the books’ cover prices.

These discounts are available across all of Packt’s hard copy books bought via the company’s website, and organisations of all sizes are offered the opportunity to obtain books for their employees or members at discounted prices.

Larger discounts are on offer as well. If a greater number of books are required, an email address has been set up ( BulkSales at PacktPub.com ) to help customers contact us about ordering in bulk much more efficiently. “Particularly since the launch of Packt Enterprise and Packt Open Source, Packt’s books are becoming ever more focussed, and therefore increasingly relevant to the specific needs of larger organisations.”, said Mark Nichols, marketing executive at Packt Publishing. “These new, easy to access discounts means that facilitating purchases in bulk will be much more simple.”

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-253308 The Post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban "business method" patents http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-253308/the-post-bilski-landscape:why-some-tried-but-failed-to-ban-b But while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controlling opinion may not do much to change the status quo when it comes to the patent system, the more interesting Bilski story is one of an important "almost"—an "almost" that by all indications was hard-fought. Indeed, for some folks—including those who hoped the Court would use the case to limit what they see as a plague of spurious patent litigation—this has to be a particularly painful “almost.” While the justices were united in denying a patent to the Rand Warsaw and Bernard Bilski’s invention, they split 5-4 on the most important issue: whether it is ever appropriate to grant patents to a method of doing business. Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:57:08 +0000 Kevin Dement 519353 "while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controlling opinion may not do much to change the status quo when it comes to the patent system, the more interesting Bilski story is one of an important "almost"—an "almost" that by all indications was hard-fought.
Indeed, for some folks—including those who hoped the Court would use the case to limit what they see as a plague of spurious patent litigation—this has to be a particularly painful “almost.”
While the justices were united in denying a patent to the Rand Warsaw and Bernard Bilski’s invention, they split 5-4 on the most important issue: whether it is ever appropriate to grant patents to a method of doing business."

Source: http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/07/post-bilski-landscape-attempt-to-ban-biz-meth-patents-fails.html#more

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252481 KluwerLawBlog: German Court (BGH) strengthens significance of EPO’s and foreign courts’ decisions http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252481/kluwerlawblog:german-court-bgh-strengthens-significance-of-e The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has recently made clear that every court has to take into account preceding decisions of the European Patent Office and of courts of other contracting states to the European Patent Convention if these decisions essentially concern the same questions. Although there is no principle of precedence in Germany – neither in respect of German nor of foreign decisions –, the recent ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (...) requires more than just regarding other decisions with favour. Every court has the obligation to deal with the arguments brought forward in other – German, EPO or foreign – decisions. Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:22:31 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has recently made clear that every court has to take into account preceding decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) and of courts of other contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC) if these decisions essentially concern the same questions. Although there is no principle of precedence in Germany – neither in respect of German nor of foreign decisions –, the recent ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, 15 April 2010, Xa ZB 10/09 – “Walzenformgebungsmaschine”) requires more than just regarding other decisions with favour. Every court has the obligation to deal with the arguments brought forward in other – German, EPO or foreign – decisions."

Source: http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2010/07/06/german-federal-supreme-court-strengthens-the-significance-of-epos-and-foreign-courts-decisions/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252361 FeldThoughts: Why Bilski Really Means That Software Companies should leave the US http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252361/feldthoughts:why-bilski-really-means-that-software-companies What Bilski means for software is that the advantages of starting software businesses abroad have become even more clear. The tax situation and cost of living in, say, South America, is much better than in the U.S. currently. Now that startups have to live in fear of the uncertainty of the U.S. patent system, when they could be wiped off the face of the Earth by legal fees and customer loss in the span of a few months by the mere filing of a patent suit, and with an entire government that seems to have no sympathy toward their small businesses, why start a software company in the United States? Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:07:45 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "What Bilski means for software is that the advantages of starting software businesses abroad have become even more clear. The tax situation and cost of living in, say, South America, is much better than in the U.S. currently. Now that startups have to live in fear of the uncertainty of the U.S. patent system, when they could be wiped off the face of the Earth by legal fees and customer loss in the span of a few months by the mere filing of a patent suit, and with an entire government that seems to have no sympathy toward their small businesses, why start a software company in the United States?"

Source: http://www.jasonmendelson.com/wp/archives/2010/06/bilski-redux-and-why-you-shouldnt-believe-everything-you-read.php

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252062 SCOTUSblog: Business method patents nearly bite the dust http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-252062/scotusblog:business-method-patents-nearly-bite-the-dust Goldstein argues that "Justice Stevens was originally going to author the Court’s opinion in Bilski but subsequently lost his majority to Justice Kennedy." In terms of consequences, he states: "On the broadest level of whether the Court might revisit Bilski in a later case when Justice Scalia has the opportunity to consider the matter further, I think the answer is clearly no. In statutory cases like this one [...] the Justices try to adhere to stare decisis. The decision in Bilski settles the question that business methods are patentable subject matter until Congress decides otherwise"."// Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:04:57 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Bilski also lines up perfectly for the scenario of a lost majority. It is a five-to-four decision. Justices Kennedy and Stevens are the authors of the principal opinions. The ruling took a long time to issue – it was argued in November but not decided until the last day of the Term – suggesting that something may have been amiss.
The Stevens opinion also reads as if it were originally an opinion for the Court […]. Further, the muddled vote of the majority’s fifth vote, Justice Scalia – who joined the majority in part and Justice Breyer’s concurrence in substantial part – suggests that he had significant difficulty in resolving the case. […] Another piece of evidence of rough compromise in Bilski is the Kennedy opinion itself. While it does decide the case, it is surpassingly narrow. It rejects the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test as the exclusive test of patentability and stops there. The Court does not attempt to provide further guidance, which is some evidence that five Justices could not agree on how to articulate an appropriate test. For all those reasons, it seems quite likely to me that Justice Stevens was originally going to author the Court’s opinion in Bilski but subsequently lost his majority to Justice Kennedy. […]
Finally, there remains the “so what” question. […] On the broadest level of whether the Court might revisit Bilski in a later case when Justice Scalia has the opportunity to consider the matter further, I think the answer is clearly no. In statutory cases like this one […] the Justices try to adhere to stare decisis. The decision in Bilski settles the question that business methods are patentable subject matter until Congress decides otherwise."

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/07/business-method-patents-nearly-bite-the-dust/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251896 Bradley Kuhn: Post-Bilski Steps for Anti-Software-Patent Advocates http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251896/bradley-kuhn:post-bilski-steps-for-anti-software-patent-advo [...] As near as I can tell from what I've learned, the entire “Bilski thing” appears to be a no-op. In short, as before, the Patent Office sometimes can and will deny applications that it determines are only abstract ideas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that the Patent Office can reject such an application if the Patent Office "knows an abstract idea when it sees it". Nothing has changed regarding most patents that are granted every day, including those that read on software. Those of us that oppose software patents continue to believe that software algorithms are indeed merely abstract ideas and pure mathematics and shouldn't be patentable subject matter. The governmental powers still seems to disagree with us [...] Looking forward, my largest concern [...] is that the “patent reform” crowd, who claim to be the allies of the anti-software-patent folks, will use this decision to declare that "the system works". [...] Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:51:45 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[…] As near as I can tell from what I've learned, the entire “Bilski thing” appears to be a no-op. In short, as before, the Patent Office sometimes can and will deny applications that it determines are only abstract ideas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that the Patent Office can reject such an application if the Patent Office "knows an abstract idea when it sees it". Nothing has changed regarding most patents that are granted every day, including those that read on software. Those of us that oppose software patents continue to believe that software algorithms are indeed merely abstract ideas and pure mathematics and shouldn't be patentable subject matter. The governmental powers still seems to disagree with us, or, at least, just won't comment on that question.
Looking forward, my largest concern, from a policy perspective, is that the “patent reform” crowd, who claim to be the allies of the anti-software-patent folks, will use this decision to declare that "the system works". […]
We must not yield to the patent reformists, particularly at a time like this. […]
Since Bilski has given us no new tools for abolishing software patents, we must redouble efforts with tools we already have to mitigate the threat patents pose to software freedom."

Source: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/06/30/bilski.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251739 Pharmacogenomics Reporter: SCOTUS Tasks Lower Court with Determining Criteria for Dx Patentability http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251739/pharmacogenomics-reporter:scotus-tasks-lower-court-with-dete A day after reaching a decision in the business methods patent case Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court this week remanded the diagnostic patent case Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services et al., to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with an order to revisit the case in light of Bilski. The lower court must now reconsider Prometheus with the understanding that the so-called "machine-or-transformation test" cannot be the sole determinant for patentability. While this presents an opportunity for the Federal Circuit to come up with new methods for determining patentability with regard to advanced technologies not grounded in a physical platform, nothing in the Supreme Court's recent actions sheds light on how the courts might deal with method patents related to genetic testing. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:40:53 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "A day after reaching a decision in the business methods patent case Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court this week remanded the diagnostic patent case Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services et al., to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with an order to revisit the case in light of Bilski.
The lower court must now reconsider Prometheus with the understanding that the so-called "machine-or-transformation test" cannot be the sole determinant for patentability. While this presents an opportunity for the Federal Circuit to come up with new methods for determining patentability with regard to advanced technologies not grounded in a physical platform, nothing in the Supreme Court's recent actions sheds light on how the courts might deal with method patents related to genetic testing."

Source: http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/supreme-court-tasks-lower-court-determining-criteria-dx-patentability?page=show

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251738 Timothy B. Lee: Justice Scalia’s Indecision a Victory for the Patent Bar http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251738/timothy-b-lee:justice-scalias-indecision-a-victory-for-the-p Whenever Justice Kennedy waxes poetic about the Information Age, Justice Scalia gets off the bus. The result is an exceptionally narrow holding that doesn’t give much comfort to partisans on either side. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:37:31 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Whenever Justice Kennedy waxes poetic about the Information Age, Justice Scalia gets off the bus. The result is an exceptionally narrow holding that doesn’t give much comfort to partisans on either side.[…]
The primary winners from all this are the patent lawyers. Not only are there few restrictions on what can be patented, but the high court’s failure to articulate a clear rule means even more litigation. All is not lost, though. Justice Stevens is retiring, but Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor all signed onto his opinion. If Justice Kagan sides with her fellow liberals, then they’ll need just one more vote to restore some sanity to patent law. As the patent system continues to inflict damage on the IT industry, the need for reform will only get more obvious. Hopefully, the next time the Supreme Court has an opportunity to fix the problem, Justice Scalia will get off the fence."

Source: http://timothyblee.com/2010/06/29/justice-scalias-indecision-a-victory-for-the-patent-bar/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251737 Techdirt: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251737/techdirt:reading-the-bilski-tea-leaves-for-what-the-supreme [...] as more people have had more time to look at and sift through the rulings in greater detail, some are realizing there may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for those who dislike software patents. Contrary to the claims of the IEEE, the ruling did not, in fact, come out and say that software patents are legit. It sidestepped that question -- in part due to Justice Scalia's decision to opt-out of two sections of Kennedy's majority opinion. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:35:12 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[…] as more people have had more time to look at and sift through the rulings in greater detail, some are realizing there may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for those who dislike software patents. Contrary to the claims of the IEEE, the ruling did not, in fact, come out and say that software patents are legit. It sidestepped that question — in part due to Justice Scalia's decision to opt-out of two sections of Kennedy's majority opinion."

Source: http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100701/16343110051&utm_medium=bt.io-twitter&utm_source=direct-bt.io&utm_content=backtype-tweetcount

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251733 BIO Commends Supreme Court for Expansive View of Patentability in Bilski Decision http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251733/bio-commends-supreme-court-for-expansive-view-of-patentabili "In our amicus brief, BIO urged the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's rigid new test for determining whether a method or process is eligible for patenting. We are pleased that the Justices crafted a narrow opinion that does just that. The Court was clearly conscious of the potential negative and unforeseeable consequences of a broad and sweeping decision," stated BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:06 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "'In our amicus brief, BIO urged the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's rigid new test for determining whether a method or process is eligible for patenting. We are pleased that the Justices crafted a narrow opinion that does just that. The Court was clearly conscious of the potential negative and unforeseeable consequences of a broad and sweeping decision', stated BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood."

Source: http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/BIO-Commends-Supreme-Court-on-expansive-view-of-patentability-579527

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251731 EcommerceTimes: Bilski Brouhaha: Supreme Court Keeps Stevens at Bay http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251731/ecommercetimes:bilski-brouhaha:supreme-court-keeps-stevens-a Although all of the justices agreed that the invention at issue was unpatentable, the opinion is fractionated, with justices joining various pieces of the opinion, and Justices Stevens and Breyer writing concurrences to elaborate their views hostile to patenting in the information sector. Justice Kennedy's plurality decision held that the Federal Circuit's Machine-or-Transformation test could not be an exclusive test under section 101, although subsequent tests could be propounded consistent with the Court's precedent. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:11:45 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Although all of the justices agreed that the invention at issue was unpatentable, the opinion is fractionated, with justices joining various pieces of the opinion, and Justices Stevens and Breyer writing concurrences to elaborate their views hostile to patenting in the information sector. Justice Kennedy's plurality decision held that the Federal Circuit's Machine-or-Transformation test could not be an exclusive test under section 101, although subsequent tests could be propounded consistent with the Court's precedent. […]
To many, the Supreme Court punted the issue and created more issues, e.g., in litigation. Although clarity would have been appreciated, the court, mindful of the minefield through which it was treading, desiring to avoid unforeseen aftereffects, such as those that chilled the software industry decades ago."

Source: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Bilski-Brouhaha-Supreme-Court-Keeps-Stevens-at-Bay-70327.html?wlc=1278359841

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251642 New America Foundation: Video Prison: Why Patents Might Threaten Free Online Video http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251642/new-america-foundation:video-prison:why-patents-might-threat If online videos were subject to patent licensing fees, users could be charged per-view to capture those fees. [...] video licensing could reduce the democratic nature of free and open Internet content to monetizable media. The funny cat videos would be gone forever [...], but so too would the movement-inspiring Nedas of the future remain unknown. [...] As the Web incorporates multimedia, some participants want to control -- and charge for -- its video standards. [...] Some participants in the online video discussion claim that common video codecs [...] cannot be implemented without infringing their patents. One codec under popular consideration for use in HTML5 is H.264 (a.k.a. MPEG-4 AVC), already used for an estimated 66% of all online video content, [...]. Yet H.264 is also claimed to be subject to a pool of patents controlled by MPEG-LA, a limited liability corporation that describes itself as the "world’s leading packager of patent pools for standards" Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:57:03 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "If online videos were subject to patent licensing fees, users could be charged per-view to capture those fees. […] video licensing could reduce the democratic nature of free and open Internet content to monetizable media. The funny cat videos would be gone forever (perhaps not the greatest loss), but so too would the movement-inspiring Nedas of the future remain unknown. […] As the Web incorporates multimedia, some participants want to control — and charge for — its video standards. […] Some participants in the online video discussion claim that common video codecs […] cannot be implemented without infringing their patents. One codec under popular consideration for use in HTML5 is H.264 (a.k.a. MPEG-4 AVC), already used for an estimated 66% of all online video content, including Hulu and YouTube. Yet H.264 is also claimed to be subject to a pool of patents controlled by MPEG-LA, a limited liability corporation that describes itself as the "world’s leading packager of patent pools for standards and other technology platforms.""

Source: http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/video_prison_why_patents_might_threaten_free_online_video-33950

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251409 The Supreme Court Keeps Business-Method Patents Alive http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251409/the-supreme-court-keeps-business-method-patents-alive The Supreme Court, as expected, dealt the final blow to Pittsburgh inventor Rand Warsaw's dream of patenting a method for hedging energy costs against changes in the weather. In doing so, however, the court didn't upset the foundations of the multibillion-dollar world of "business method patents," which are based less on a particular machine than a process for achieving some practical end. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:22:30 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The Supreme Court, as expected, dealt the final blow to Pittsburgh inventor Rand Warsaw's dream of patenting a method for hedging energy costs against changes in the weather. In doing so, however, the court didn't upset the foundations of the multibillion-dollar world of "business method patents," which are based less on a particular machine than a process for achieving some practical end.
It was an anticlimactic end to a case whose decision was so long delayed that some speculated the justices were deadlocked over how far to rein in what some see as an out-of-control patent process. Instead, the court rejected a narrow test that would require patents to involve a machine or transformation of matter and merely said patents can't cover an abstract idea.
"It looks like what people actually thought it would be, before it took forever," said John Dragseth of Fish & Richardson in Minneapolis. "Not much has changed from what thoughtful people thought the law should be.""

Source: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-keeps-business-method-patents-alive/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251403 CNet: Supreme Court sidesteps software patent issue http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251403/cnet:supreme-court-sidesteps-software-patent-issue Anyone hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would limit the ability to patent software will be disappointed by Monday's ruling. The court ruled against patent applicants Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw (PDF), who in 1997 had tried to patent a process for hedging investments, a process of countering one investment risk with another. But the majority of justices stopped far short of a broader ruling that would have curbed so-called business method patents -- and perhaps software patents as well. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:52:17 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Anyone hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would limit the ability to patent software will be disappointed by Monday's ruling. The court ruled against patent applicants Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw […]. But the majority of justices stopped far short of a broader ruling that would have curbed so-called business method patents — and perhaps software patents as well. "

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20009019-264.html

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251402 Bnet: Supreme Court Says No to Bilski Decision, Yes to Software Patents http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251402/bnet:supreme-court-says-no-to-bilski-decision-yes-to-softwar The bottom line: contrary to some reports, experts say that the 5-4 ruling offers little to no change in business method and software patents. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:50:55 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "The bottom line: contrary to some reports, experts say that the 5-4 ruling offers little to no change in business method and software patents. “It was a rather uneventful opinion and kind of what we asked for,” said Scott Bain, litigation counsel of the Software & Information Industry Association […]. “Things are pretty similar if not the same as before Bilski."

Source: http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10009237/supreme-court-says-no-to-bilski-decision-yes-to-software-patents/

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251400 IAMblog: A bad day for anti-software patent groups, so what happens next? http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251400/iamblog:a-bad-day-for-anti-software-patent-groups-so-what-ha My guess is that Bilski ends the debate about the limits of patentability through the US courts for now; while in Europe it is difficult to see there being much court-led change either [...]. If this is right, it probably means that if there is to be a challenge to existing regimes it will have to come through legislation. And to my mind, that probably means growing calls for reform from the anti-software patent side. As a result, I would expect to see an increase in activity on both sides of the Atlantic from anti-groups as they seek to create momentum behind calls for legislation to limit patentability. They are very good at this and in the past the pro-patent side has been very bad at responding. I wonder if it will be different this time. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:48:48 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "My guess is that Bilski ends the debate about the limits of patentability through the US courts for now; while in Europe it is difficult to see there being much court-led change either - given the recent decision of the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal. If this is right, it probably means that if there is to be a challenge to existing regimes it will have to come through legislation. And to my mind, that probably means growing calls for reform from the anti-software patent side. As a result, I would expect to see an increase in activity on both sides of the Atlantic from anti-groups as they seek to create momentum behind calls for legislation to limit patentability. They are very good at this and in the past the pro-patent side has been very bad at responding. I wonder if it will be different this time."

Source: http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=878012c7-3ea8-4a15-8cba-a5d32b205eb1

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251399 Tapped: The Supreme Court's Anti-Software Patent Decision. http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251399/tapped:the-supreme-court-s-anti-software-patent-decision So, that makes (a) nine justices who ruled against vague business-method patent applications and challenged a strain of judicial certainty about the proper way of handling these patents and (b) five justices who challenged the operational notion that new ways of doing stuff are themselves deserving of patents from the United States government. Seems reasonable to read those two together as an encouraging result for people who’d like to see the end of software patents. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:46:27 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "So, that makes (a) nine justices who ruled against vague business-method patent applications and challenged a strain of judicial certainty about the proper way of handling these patents and (b) five justices who challenged the operational notion that new ways of doing stuff are themselves deserving of patents from the United States government. Seems reasonable to read those two together as an encouraging result for people who’d like to see the end of software patents."

Source: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2010&base_name=reading_bilski_as_propatent_re

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251398 PCWorld: Supreme Court Decision Raises Software Patent Questions http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251398/pcworld:supreme-court-decision-raises-software-patent-questi Recent decision doesn't change much, except that the Court’s decision was at odds with 150 years of patent law, says a legal expert. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:44:26 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Recent decision doesn't change much, except that the Court’s decision was at odds with 150 years of patent law, says a legal expert. […] the Justices were in fact leaving the wording of the test open in anticipation of new technology, [said former ABA chair Richard] Field. Although no one in 150 years has defined the test to include things that might be coming up in the next 20 years, the Court essentially said, “We should keep those words open just in case,” he explained. […] Unlike Field, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot help but think that the Court’s decision may make it more difficult for new technology to come to market. In that case, consumers lose."

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/200208/supreme_court_decision_raises_software_patent_questions.html?tk=hp_new

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251395 EurActiv: EU seeks to break patent translation deadlock http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251395/euractiv:eu-seeks-to-break-patent-translation-deadlock Innovative companies could see a dramatic reduction in the cost of patenting new inventions, if a controversial European Commission plan is adopted by EU governments. The new rules could pave the way for a single European patent to be issued in one of just three languages – English, French or German. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:40:27 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "Innovative companies could see a dramatic reduction in the cost of patenting new inventions, if a controversial European Commission plan is adopted by EU governments. The new rules could pave the way for a single European patent to be issued in one of just three languages – English, French or German."

Source: http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-seeks-break-patent-translation-deadlock-news-495842

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251380 ArsTechnica: A Tribute to Justice John Paul Stevens http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251380/arstechnica:a-tribute-to-justice-john-paul-stevens Justice Stevens probably deserves more credit than any other justice for the innovations of the last three decades. And given how central those technologies have become to the American economy, Stevens' tech policy work may prove one of his most enduring legacies. In this feature, we review Justice Stevens's tech policy decisions and salute the justice who helped make possible DRM-free media devices, uncensored Internet connections, free software, and much more. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:45:11 +0000 ggiedke 32664 As Ars Technica writer Timothy B. Lee observes, Justice Stevens was probably the most influential voice in the US Supreme Courts decisions relating to technology. The occasion of his retirement from the Court is observed by a tribute that highlights his many achievements for information freedom: his was the decisive vote in the 1984 Sony vs Betamax decision preserving the right to make copies for private use, he consistently (but with varying success) argued against software patents, including a great concurring opinion in Bilski vs. Kappos, his last opionion on the Court; and he joined the majority in decisions upholding free speech on the internet (1998, 2004). Ars summarizes aptly: "Indeed, Justice Stevens probably deserves more credit than any other justice for the innovations of the last three decades. And given how central those technologies have become to the American economy, Stevens' tech policy work may prove one of his most enduring legacies. In this feature, we review Justice Stevens's tech policy decisions and salute the justice who helped make possible DRM-free media devices, uncensored Internet connections, free software, and much more."

Thank you very much, Justice Stevens and may you long enjoy the freedoms you have fought for and helped shape.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/the-supreme-court-loses-its-cryptographer.ars

]]> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251288 PatLit: Bilski v. Kappos: Supreme Court says, "No comment" http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-251288/patlit:bilski-v-kappos:supreme-court-says-no-comment [...] Thus Bilski v. Kappos, the most anticipated patent law case in recent history went out not with a bang, but with a whimper. No sweeping pronouncements and few definitive declarations were in evidence. In fact, the majority opinion may raise more questions than it answers. This, of course, can only work to the benefit of most patent attorneys, who make a living from the continued raising of such questions. Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:27:56 +0000 ggiedke 32664 "[…] Thus Bilski v. Kappos, the most anticipated patent law case in recent history went out not with a bang, but with a whimper. No sweeping pronouncements and few definitive declarations were in evidence. In fact, the majority opinion may raise more questions than it answers. This, of course, can only work to the benefit of most patent attorneys, who make a living from the continued raising of such questions. "

Source: http://patlit.blogspot.com/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-supreme-court-says-no.html

]]>