News picks
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
| Thread name | Started | Posts | Recent post |
|
A recently published patent application for a “system that facilitates using a web-based client-server application offline” sounds a lot like Google’s Gears project. The patent was filed by Erik Arvidsson, who blog posts reveal is an engineer on the Gears team, and by Andrew Palay, who listed Computer Scientist at Google as his occupation when donating the Barack Obama campaign earlier this year. So the evidence would suggest that this is indeed a patent application from Google concerning Gears.
|
by:  zoobab 1229088508|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
SFLC yesterday announced its cooperation with the LinuxDefenders project of the Open Innovation Network (OIN). LinuxDefenders is a program to create defensive patent tools to reduce patent concerns for the Linux and open source community. While LinuxDefenders and OIN do not share SFLC's goal to eliminate all software patents, SFLC hopes to cooperate with LinuxDefenders on those projects that can help defend Open Source and Free Software from patent threats.
|
by: zoobab 1229088336|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Regulators favor patent pools to encourage innovation in industries where overlapping patents and excessive litigation suppress innovation. With patent pools, member firms share patents freely with each other and offer one-stop licenses to outside firms. Thus patent pools are expected to promote innovation by reducing litigation risks for pool members and lowering transaction costs for outside firms. We examine this prediction at the example of the first patent pool in U.S. history, the Sewing Machine Combination (1856-1877). Our data confirm that pools reduce litigation risks for members and that pool members patent more in the years leading up to the pool. Pool members, however, patent less as soon as the pool is established and only resume patenting after the pool dissolves.
|
by: zoobab 1229088198|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
According to statements by Alexander Poltorak, General Patent Corporation’s Chairman and CEO, “[t]he Worlds patents represent exceptionally valuable intellectual property,” and “[w]e welcome licensing inquiries from the on-line game industry. Non-exclusive licenses are available on favorable and non-discriminatory terms.” Worlds.com holds U.S. Patent Nos. 6,219,045 entitled “Scalable Virtual World Chat Client-Server System” and 7,181,690 titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space”.
|
by: zoobab 1229087962|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Earlier today General Patent Corporation, a Suffern, New York based Intellectual Property licensing and enforcement firm, announced that it has retained the Westfield, New Jersey law firm of Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP to work on behalf of Worlds.com, Inc. in regards to enforcing Worlds.com’s patent portfolio.
|
by: zoobab 1229087842|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Patent pools tend to come about when you have a lot of patents in and around a particular product, creating "patent thickets" where a bunch of different patent holders all hold onto important pieces of the puzzle. The worst case scenario, then, is that nothing can get done, as it's impossible for anyone to innovate without being hit by a ridiculous number of lawsuits. To us, this is a sign of the patent system clearly not working. If so many different elements all need to be patented separately, then mistakes were made in the patenting process. You get, as Michael Heller has called it, a gridlock situation. Our solution? Throw out such patents, because they're clearly hindering, rather than enabling, innovation.
|
by: zoobab 1229087757|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
The Court has, however, given no guidance on whether the disclosed patents must be licensed and under what terms a licence will be granted. This remains a matter of the standards setting organisation to decide. Most organisations require that licences be granted on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms” (FRAND). The question before several courts at present is the meaning of FRAND terms".
|
by: zoobab 1229087452|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Defending against trolls and strategics - To limit bogus patent claims, Linux Defenders will finance and organize "defensive publications" that establish a body of new prior art by placing it into the public domain. Examiners can then use these publications to improve patent application screening, thereby theoretically leading to higher patent quality. Endorsed by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), defensive publications are said to provide a form of preemptive disclosure that prevents other parties from obtaining a patent.
|
by: zoobab 1229087086|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
The US Patent and Trademark Office today published a collection of Apple filings, including a 3D interface that may herald the most radical - or, dare we say, the most bizarre - usability development since Doug Englebart first demoed a window-based GUI 40 years ago yesterday. Described in excruciating detail by AppleInsider, the "Multi-Dimensional Desktop" application, filed on June 8 of last year, describes a 3D workspace - "desktop" being a wholly inadequate term - in which the familiar 2-dimensional GUI is joined by a floor, ceiling, and right and left walls, each capable of displaying interface items such as windows and icons.
|
by: zoobab 1229086981|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Today, Tuesday, 9th of December, a consortium of technology companies, has launched a new initiative designed to protect open source software against aggressive patents. Called Linux Defenders the new, free, service provides a group of engineers and lawyers who will help shape, structure, and document new open source software inventions in the form of a "defensive publication". Linux defenders then submit this "defensive publication" to the IP.com web site, which is a database used by patent examiners when they are evaluating patent applications for true novelty. Defensive publishing of this type is a pre-emptive measure against those who file, often unsound, patents based on already available information, purely for profit.
|
by: zoobab 1229086837|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
A Lawyer and a Free Social Activist, Mishi was in the city to deliver a lecture on software patents at the second International Conference on Freedom in Computing, Development and Culture that concluded here on Thursday. According to Mishi, India should stick to the Indian Patent Act, 1970, and should not allow patents on inventions related to software under the new Draft Manual published recently.To put things in perspective, in December 2004, the Union Government had brought an ordinance to make invention related to computer software used in hardware and having industrial applications under the definition of patentable invention, by amending the Indian Patent Act, 1970. But it was not enacted because of intense opposition raised by the Left parties and the Free Software Foundation. The ordinance was rejected in March, 2005.
|
by: zoobab 1229086367|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Can I patent software running on a general purpose computer? The Bilski court focused on data-processing methods, and did not address the patentability of hardware or software per se. A key question for the future is how the phrase “tied to a particular machine” will be applied to software patents. If interpreted narrowly — i.e., requiring the use of special-purpose computing hardware to receive a patent — many, if not most, business method and software patents may not survive. If it is read less restrictively, the status quo may prevail. In either case, patents for inventions implemented as software should include some structural and functional components in the patent application and the claims. Claims covering human activity are now seemingly a thing of the past.
|
by: zoobab 1229086055|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
In order to avoid getting embroiled in messy and expensive patent disputes, many companies have taken to filing for defensive patents. Companies now have a tendency to patent everything they do, even if they never intend to enforce the patent; instead, their intellectual property portfolios exist in part to protect them from being sued by anyone else. This approach doesn't necessarily sit well with the open source community, which lacks a single umbrella organization to file for patents, and is populated by many individuals who don't feel that software should be subject to patenting. Today saw the launch of a group that aims to protect open source projects from patent disputes both by formally establishing prior art and by participating in patent peer review.
|
by: zoobab 1229085955|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Those who followed recent posts about this subject [1, 2, 3] already know that we are not huge fans of the “Linux Defenders” initiative; not because it’s ineffective but because it’s the wrong way to approach the problem. It is a way that pleases big companies (and funding sources) like IBM, i.e. it keeps the things IBM likes and tackles those which it does not like. IBM is, sadly enough, not opposed to software patents. It just wants to weed out the ‘nuisance’ that’s a by-product.
|
by: zoobab 1229085770|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Fragmentation of the EU's single market and particularly its patent system represent major obstacles to innovation, which is mainly driven by SMEs, Jonathan Zuck, president of an association representing more than 3,000 small and mid-sized IT firms from around the world, told EurActiv in an interview. [...] So there is some hope, I think, that while the times might be trying during an economic downturn, the desire to fix that might create the political will necessary to push something like the Community patent over the finishing line.
|
by: zoobab 1228987182|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
The idea here is the usual ratchet approach beloved of the copyright crowd: for the sake of “harmonisation”, every country will be forced to accept the national regime that is most favourable to software patents. The reason Europe absolutely must have harmonised patent rules is explained in a new report from the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT). According to its Web site: “ACT is the only organization focused on the needs of small business innovators from around the world. We advocate for an environment that inspires and rewards innovation, and help our members leverage their intellectual assets to raise capital, create jobs and continue innovating.” Those with good memories and a fine ear will note the harping on the “innovation” note, one of Microsoft's favourite tunes (making it obey the laws would be bad for “innovation”, seemed to be one of its favourite laments). And what do we find, but that among the “small business innovators” that are members of the ACT, there is
|
by: zoobab 1228938014|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
There has been a broad discussion about his role in the debate about software patents in the European Parliament. Lehne has been one of the MEPs pushing for software patents, while Taylor Wessing has a large patent group and advises clients on patenting strategy in the software sector. Lehne has argued that he wasn’t involved with any companies engaged in the patents debate in his work as a lawyer. But still he is a partner in a law firm that boasts that its “patent group is one of the strongest, largest and best known in Europe”.
|
by: zoobab 1228937745|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Glyn Moody said: “Typically, patent trolls don’t have any products, so they are unlikely to be infringing on any of your patents. Isn’t that a problem for the OIN approach?” The reply from OIN was sincere: “Very clearly there’s not much we can do with regard to patent trolls.” We will hopefully have some more reassuring answers from the current CEO. One person suggested that we ask: “You said in an interview to LinuxJournal that “there is clearly not much we can do with regard to patent trolls”. You are also supporting high quality patents. Does OIN’s defensive approach work with a patent troll suing Linux with a portfolio of multiple high quality patents?” We are not alone in our skepticism of patent pools and ‘umbrellas’ of portfolios.
|
by: zoobab 1228925356|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
Durham, NC (December 9, 2008) - Open Invention Network (OIN), a collaborative enterprise that enables open source innovation and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem around Linux, today unveiled the Linux Defenders program, which is designed to make prior art more readily accessible to patent and trademark office examiners, and increase the quality of granted patents and reduce the number of poor quality patents.
|
by: zoobab 1228924848|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 | |
|
The Open Invention Network, the Software Freedom Law Center, and the Linux Foundation have teamed up to create another tool to defend Linux from patents. It will be hosted by the NYU Peer to Patent folks, where Mark Webbink is now. It is called Linux Defenders, and that would be you, in that they are asking folks to provide prior art to block anyone else from patenting it. Over time, this could be very significant as a protective wall. Essentially, as I understand it, it works like this: Since it costs a prohibitive amount of money to file for patents, the workaround is defensive publication. That results in prior art which can then block patents on that prior art. Brilliant, my dear Watson. No kidding.
|
by: zoobab 1228924293|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover |
1 |
