News picks
Forum » Resources / News picks
Number of threads: 2543
Number of posts: 2604
rss icon RSS: New threads | New posts
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
Order by:
Last post date
Thread starting date
Create a new thread
page 1 of 128123...127128next »
Thread name Started Posts Recent post
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
02 Oct 2010 12:18
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
27 Sep 2010 20:12
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
24 Sep 2010 08:21
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
23 Sep 2010 18:48
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
23 Sep 2010 18:47
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
25 Aug 2010 20:49
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
03 Aug 2010 07:06
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
03 Aug 2010 06:52
1  
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.
by: BrittoPBrittoP
20 Jul 2010 09:52
1  
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.
by: Kevin DementKevin Dement
14 Jul 2010 10:57
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
09 Jul 2010 12:22
1  
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?
by: ggiedkeggiedke
08 Jul 2010 19:07
1  
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"."//
by: ggiedkeggiedke
07 Jul 2010 07:04
1  
[...] 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". [...]
by: ggiedkeggiedke
06 Jul 2010 16:51
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 20:40
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 20:37
1  
[...] 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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 20:35
1  
"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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 20:15
1  
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.
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 20:11
1  
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"
by: ggiedkeggiedke
05 Jul 2010 06:57
1  
page 1 of 128123...127128next »