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
Thread name Started Posts Recent post
The hearing officer then followed the established Aerotel/Macrossan four-step approach to determine whether the invention was excluded from patentability under section 1(2). The contribution, determined to be that of allowing existing online authorisation and uploading requests to contain a gratuity in their amount, was considered to be a method for doing business as such, and also a computer program since its implementation would be in software running on otherwise conventional hardware. Any “technical features”, while possibly advantages of the invention, would not be achieved by technical means, but by changing the business uses of a known system. Any reference to whether the contribution was technical in nature would make no difference to the outcome, once the contribution was determined to fall solely within excluded subject matter. The hearing officer consequently ordered the patent to be revoked.
by: zoobabzoobab
22 Nov 2007 10:42
1  
The difficulties in making progress on patents and especially on the creation of a Community patent led the Commission to launch, in 2006, a broad consultation of all interested parties on the future patent system. The results leave no doubt on the urgent need for action to provide a simple, cost-effective and high-quality patent system in Europe.
by: zoobabzoobab
21 Nov 2007 22:25
1  
One needs to understand that there is fundamentally no difference between software and hardware; each is frequently expressed in terms of the other, interchangeably describing the same thing. For example, many microprocessors are conceptualized as software through the use of hardware description languages (HDL) such as Bluespec System Verilog and VHDL. The resulting HDL software code is downloaded to special microprocessors known as FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays), which can mimic a prospective chip's design and functions for testing. Eventually, the HDL code may be physically etched into silicon. Voilà! The software becomes hardware.
by: zoobabzoobab
21 Nov 2007 22:23
1  
It's not surprising, of course, to find out that the piece was penned by a patent attorney -- hardly an unbiased source in the matter. He also makes other mistakes and incorrect assumptions about why people dislike software patents. It's not just because most people find the patents obvious in hindsight (as he suggests), but because people understand that innovation is an ongoing process of building on the ideas of others -- and blocking off simple ideas with patents makes it nearly impossible to continue that process.
by: zoobabzoobab
21 Nov 2007 11:24
1  
Here is a group of recently-submitted videos that demonstate Europe’s resistance to software patents.
by: zoobabzoobab
21 Nov 2007 10:21
1  
Once further consensus has been reached on the jurisdictional system, solutions for the Community patent will be explored since a number of Member States consider that the jurisdictional system and the Community patent should form a package.
by: zoobabzoobab
20 Nov 2007 15:09
1  
The jury invalidated the patent on the grounds that it was obvious and did not describe a new technology. Patent 5,933,630 was filed in June 1997, and describes a method of recording the files accessed while a program starts up, optimising the sequence and on subsequent launches moving all the required data into a RAM cache. Computer Acceleration Corporation was seeking $US2.50 for every copy of XP sold in the US, which could have totalled as much as $US900 million.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 16:39
1  
Second, and maybe more important, is the fact that the U.S. patent situation is a mess because of software patents. It’s a minefield that is so difficult to navigate that even big companies that can afford to hire a battery of lawyers can still step on a nasty and get its feet blown off. Smaller software development companies probably aren’t going to be better off. It’s like playing hopscotch on a minefield; and minefields don’t discriminate. They blow up everyone. How can developers innovate with this insane setup? With great difficulty and at great risk. It’s just better to abolish all software patents entitrely. After all, if you want people to really be safe on a minefield, you don’t start handing out metal detectors. You clear the minefield. That’s the only real solution.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 16:11
1  
Tax patents undermine the integrity and fairness of the federal tax system. They put taxpayers in the undesirable position of having to choose between paying more than legally required in taxes or paying a royalty to a third-party for use of a tax planning invention that reduces those taxes. Congress needs to level the playing field and improve options for taxpayers.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 16:01
1  
Yesterday, I posted a big list of VoIP Patent questions that friends have been asking me ever since I started blogging. Since I've got clients who retain me as an expert witness in patent lawsuits, and since I'm an inventor on 18 patents, they figure I might know the answers to questions like "Don't other companies have VoIP patents, too, not just Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint?"
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 15:54
1  
Microsoft this week won a years-old patent infringement case involving technology it used to speed the boot time of Windows XP. Acceleration Software International Corp sued Microsoft for infringing on its 1999 patent in XP, and a loss could have cost the software giant up to $900 million. However, an east Texas jury found that Microsoft did not infringe on the patent. In fact, it also found that the patent was invalid because "it was obvious" (yes, seriously) and was pre-existing technology at the time of the patent grant in 1999.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 15:50
1  
Page 3 is the best part of the interview. Mr. Hilf talks about having a "map" (which wasn’t correct, as Information Week pointed out); he then adds: "Classically, our preferred plan is to license our technology in a very proactive and productive way versus litigate." Which doesn’t answer the questions: what, are, these, patents? Mr. Hilf, please tell us. We all want to know. Please.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 15:49
1  
These are almost old news, but it seems that since we’re based in Europe it took some time and went through different channels. Ars Aperta has joined the OpenInvention Network. The question that would immediately pop to some of my readers’ mind would be: what the heck is OpenInvention Network? And then I assume there would be questions about the official position of Ars Aperta in regard of software patents. Let me seize this opportunity to address this quite interesting question. First, the OIN is in the business of acquiring software patents and granting rights on them for free to anyone. Its founders are IBM, Red Hat, Philips, NEC, Sony and Novell.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 00:37
1  
The key to that is to separate, people's, individuals' and groups' belief about software patents as an issue and then what is the current way that we do patent law in at least the United States. You may disagree with it, but there's a law for how we deal with patents. They often get wrapped up together as the same issue, but they're not the same. As a company, we're hyperactively involved with patent reform and trying to find models that work best for the industry. But it is key, as you have these conversations, particularly with the open source community, keep in the back of your mind, what is the current model for doing business, right, wrong or indifferent, and then what is the opinion about software patents as an issue.
by: zoobabzoobab
19 Nov 2007 00:25
1  
Finally, IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corp. -- in other words, ACACIA -- filed a lawsuit in Marshall against Google, accusing Google's search engine and Google Earth of infringing two patents. This is the same Acacia sub that sued Red Hat and Novell over Linux, with the same lawyers - Johnny Ward and Eric Albritton. But these are different patents. The patents asserted against Google are 5,276,785 and 5,675,819, which Acacia got from Xerox.
by: zoobabzoobab
18 Nov 2007 15:11
1  
Watch the following 3-minute video. All in all, Yahoo’s talk about patent trolls was interesting. By no means, however, think of Yahoo as a pleasant company.
by: zoobabzoobab
18 Nov 2007 12:17
1  
Several senators proposed legislation on Thursday to ban tax-planning patents, as concerns mount at the Internal Revenue Service that such patents may be used to illegally avoid taxes. The bill, introduced by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would prohibit patents on all tax strategies. A similar bill was proposed in May in the House, and was attached to a major patent law overhaul bill during the summer. That overhaul bill is now before the Senate, where it is expected this new amendment will be added.
by: zoobabzoobab
17 Nov 2007 23:11
1  
Until recently InRotis, a small company spun out of Newcastle University, was part of a High Court action aimed at forcing the UK Intellectual Property Office to ensure the patent protection offered to UK patent holders matches that available in Europe. However, the firm was granted a European patent for its work, and as a result has dropped out of the action. Lawyers acting for the remaining four firms involved in the case say InRotis' departure proves the very point their clients are trying to make.
by: zoobabzoobab
17 Nov 2007 22:39
1  
Microsoft won a patent dispute this week over technology that helps computers boot up faster. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, charged Microsoft with infringing on U.S. patent 5933630, which was issued in 1999 to Acceleration Software International Corp. The suit asked the court to award the patent holder $2.50 per copy of Windows XP sold in the U.S. By Microsoft's account, that could have amounted to between $600 million and $900 million.
by: zoobabzoobab
16 Nov 2007 09:19
1  
SISVEL announced today that it is acting as the facilitator for the creation of a joint CDMA2000 patent license and is issuing a call for patents and other enforceable patent rights that are essential to the CDMA2000 standard. Sisvel has discussed with parties holding essential CDMA2000 patents to advance the process of structuring a joint license to make essential CDMA2000 patents easily accessible to all users on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. Several meetings will be held in the coming months to reach consensus on licensing terms with the objective of reaching an agreement by the beginning of 2008, and upon successful evaluation, all parties holding essential patents will be invited to join the process.
by: zoobabzoobab
15 Nov 2007 16:46
1