News picks
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
| Thread name | Started | Posts | Recent post |
|
The U.S. National Security Agency has patented a technique for figuring out whether someone is tampering with network communication. The NSA's software does this by measuring the amount of time the network takes to send different types of data from one computer to another and raising a red flag if something takes too long, according to the patent filing.
|
by: 20 Dec 2008 13:26 |
1 | |
|
Myth 9: "The software patent dilemma is addressed energetically by the EPO now that its Enlarged Board of Appeal has been invoked in order to shed its light on the limits of software patentability." Reality: The EPO President indeed recently has referred some questions about this issue to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal. However, these questions are limited to legal details. The basic premises of the present rules are not questions, and those have actually led to so much legal uncertainty, and so many questions of the appropriateness of software patents.
|
by: 20 Dec 2008 11:30 |
1 | |
|
While some argue that the definition is an issue for IPR licencing agreements known as FRAND or RAND1 where companies agree to license their intellectual property rights for a reasonable fee so that others can use it, others state that this approach is open to abuse as "reasonable fee" is unclear and incompatible with the implementation of the standard under most of the existing open source software licenses. While some argue that favouring standards with royalty free IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) prevents companies from recuperating their investments and therefore will stop innovation, others insist that, in the long-run, open (Royalty Free) standards will bring more competition and innovation.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 16:26 |
1 | |
|
Reaffirms EIF v1.0's narrow definition of "open standards". Under this definition, among other things to qualify as "open" any IP in the standard must be made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis and there must be no constraints on re-use of the standard. The draft EIF v2.0 expressly provides that to qualify as open a standard must be capable of being implemented by both proprietary software and OSS solutions, but assumes that OSS solutions are incompatible with IP rights in standards.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 16:19 |
1 | |
|
Finally, the attempt to redefine the meaning of "open standards" in EIF 1.0 has only created difficulties in collaboration between relevant stakeholders, and it persists here. Accepted definitions, such as the one used by the Global Standards Collaboration5, do not need to be revised in this context, and a new definition of "open standards" is not needed here.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 16:04 |
1 | |
|
As other stakeholders have noted including EICTA, whose submission to the Commission is attached to this letter most developers of open standards have intellectual property policies that could fail to satisfy the above criteria. The major standards bodies have policies that permit IPR holders to license any patents essential to the standard under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms that would not satisfy the requirements of the EIF. Leading standards developed by bodies generally recognised as open standards developers such as OASIS, W3C, IETF, IEEE, ETSI, ISO, IEC and ITU would not in fact be "open" under the EIF criteria.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 15:58 |
1 | |
|
The Draft EIF v2 proposed to redefine "open standards" in a way that devalues intellectual property in standards and discourages intellectual property creators from introducing their innovative technology. The EIF v2 have adopted a new definition of "open standards, it should be a definition with European Commission standardisation policy and consistent with ISO. a. Standards policies respect the balance of interests of intellectual property creators and users to encourage investment in and dissemination of innovative technology. b. RAND-based standards are available to all users, including vendors relying on the open source software business model. The EIF v2 revaluating "open standards" assumes that interoperability cannot be based on RAND-based standards.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 15:54 |
1 | |
|
The proposed exclusion of non-royalty free standards will slow down innovation because R&D investments can no longer be earned back. This is bad for society consumers and public authorities alike and for the economy at large. It will hurt our region hardest as proximity to (public authority) customers is an advantage. It should not be forgotten that if royalty-free standards are imposed, European investors in R&D will have to give royalty-free licenses to non-European competitors, which is difficult to reconcile with the EU's Lisbon objectives.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 15:34 |
1 | |
|
Open Standards - Red Hat strongly believes that fostering open standards and encouraging innovation decreases dependence on a single suite of applications and on a single vendor. Therefore, Red Hat supports the adoption and promotion of open standards that are available free from any licensing, royalty payments, or other restrictions, and that are implementable by multiple vendors on multiple platforms. Ideally, such standards are developed through a transparent and vendor-neutral process. Red Hat is very pleased that the EIF v2.0 adopts these same principles regarding open standards. The company also commends the IDABC for resisting pressure to broaden its definition of "open" standards to include standards that contain intellectual property for which a developer must pay a royalty. Such standards, which generally benefit only one proprietary vendor, do not meet the generally accepted definition of "openness" and should not be promulgated as such.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 15:30 |
1 | |
|
OFE believes that the continuing debate on specific issues of IPR, e.g. patent applicability, within the specific context of interoperability will never be fully resolved until a legislative stance is taken. OFE therefore believes that the Commission should be working on the formulation of a formal Interoperability Directive.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 15:26 |
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: 19 Dec 2008 15:10 |
1 | |
|
Leaving aside the fact that software patents "as such" are not, in any case, admissible in Europe, this is a fundamental issue. Standards that depend on patents are not compatible with open source unless royalty-free licences are granted irrevocably. I therefore urge the European Commission not to compromise on this point, since doing so would vitiate the creation of a playing-field that is level for all and not just those with deep pockets - and nullify the entire point of the interoperability framework. There is no halfway house here.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 14:52 |
1 | |
|
The UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) will still use a previously formulated test on software patents despite a court ruling which many took to be critical of its approach. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) has said that the IPO's guidance could cause uncertainty and increase the cost of doing business in the software industry.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 14:37 |
1 | |
|
There’s been Open Invention Network and Allied Security Trust, and now there’s RPX Corporation promising protection against the so-called patent troll. RPX, amusingly enough, was started by two refugees from what is widely perceived to be one of the biggest patent trolls around, Intellectual Ventures-founded by ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold (pictured).
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 14:36 |
1 | |
|
In Apple's latest legal battle, a wireless-entertainment company has sued the computer-maker for patent infringement, according to InformationWeek. EZ4Media submitted the filings to a Louisiana court, claiming that Apple TV, Airport Express, and even Mac computers infringe on a number of its patents. The company had originally purchased the patents from Universal Electronics (UEI) in March and alleges that three UEI employees left to work for Apple approximately a year before the launch of Apple TV.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 14:34 |
1 | |
|
New research commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office's IP Crime Group shows that many businesses are not doing anything to ensure they protect their intellectual property. This is despite an overwhelming majority of businesses understanding the need to protect intellectual property. [...] So what this survey really underlines is that it is the media industries' obsession with preserving an out-dated business model based on enforcing intellectual monopolies that is out of step with the rest of society. The results provide further evidence that it is time the content industries got over this hangover from the 20th century, and moved on to more profitable activities like exploiting the incredible opportunities offered to them by the Internet.
|
by: 19 Dec 2008 14:04 |
1 | |
|
The Wine project has won an award from the SourceForge 2008 Community Choice Awards. We won the category: "Most Likely to Be Ambiguously and Baselessly Accused of Patent Violation". We would like to thank to the voters of SourceForge community for this fantastic award.
|
by: 18 Dec 2008 11:46 |
1 | |
|
Computers have become part of every area of today’s life, becoming constantly more advanced and allow increasingly smaller gadgets to perform more, and more complicated task. The number of inventions in that field has been increasing rapidly, and patent applications for computer implemented inventions has been seen one of the highest growth rates of all fields of technology. The one-day conference is dedicated to exploring the treatment of computer-implemented inventions under patent law in Europe, Japan and the U.S. Renowned experts – Judges, academic and practitioners – from all three jurisdictions will present the case law and praxis of the relevant patent offices and courts in the respective jurisdictions, both with regard to the particularities of obtaining and enforcing patents for computer implemented inventions.
|
by: 18 Dec 2008 08:50 |
1 | |
|
Both the United States and the European Union are facing demands to modify policies on patents, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property protection, coming from different perspectives. There are high profile right-owner lobbying efforts directed at higher standards and tougher enforcement of intellectual property rights, and growing interest among consumer groups, academics and many innovative businesses to protect the public domain and retain or even expand user rights. There is also much interest in exploring newer approaches to the support of creative and inventive communities, that do not rely on notions of exclusive rights.
|
by: 17 Dec 2008 17:43 |
1 | |
|
Meanwhile, the issue has been resurrected in Europe. Three years after the European Parliament rejected a proposed directive after extraordinarily contentious debate, the EPO President has asked the Enlarged Board of Appeals to determine where and how the line should be drawn on computer programs. The UK Intellectual Property Office has announced an economic study of software patents to provide input to the EPO. There is also vigorous debate in India, centered around patent office interpretation of recent legislation.
|
by: 17 Dec 2008 17:25 |
1 |
