News picks
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
| Thread name | Started | Posts | Recent post |
|
If you're a PC, you may be unfamiliar with The Dock, the bar of icons that sits at the bottom or side of a Mac and provides easy access to Apple applications. But don't count on it becoming a standard on the PC. On Tuesday, the USPTO awarded Apple — and inventor Steve Jobs — a patent for their User Interface for Providing Consolidation and Access, aka 'The Dock,' after a rather lengthy nine-year wait.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 17:15 |
1 | |
|
Dr. John Collins, Partner at Marks & Clerk, commented: "This is an important step on the road to harmonising UK and Europe’s approach to software patentability. Software developers in the UK who had previously faced a much narrower interpretation of what could be patented should welcome this news. The ‘technical test’ has been placed back at the heart of the UK approach, which is particularly crucial in the case of ‘pure software’ – implementing technical solutions to technical problems that don’t extend beyond the computer itself."
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 16:52 |
1 | |
|
The Court of Appeal judgment in Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents has just been published, and is available from BAILII here. The UK-IPO's appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Patten in the High Court (here, with IPKat commentary here and here) has been dismissed. More details later...
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 16:50 |
1 | |
|
Although the UK is a member of the European Patent Organisation, it has proved harder to get protection for software-related technology here than in other parts of Europe. This has not only applied in terms of UKIPO applications, but also in the enforcement of patents granted by the EPO through the UK courts. It seems that many patent practitioners in the UK believe that not only will the UKIPO now have to liberalise its patenting policy, but that also the courts here will be less likely to overturn EPO-granted patents in the future.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 16:47 |
1 | |
|
He allowed an appeal by Symbian Ltd against the Comptroller's decision refusing UK Patent Application No GB 0325145.1 ("the Application"), on the ground that the alleged invention was excluded from patentability by section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. The issue raised on this appeal requires us to consider the reach of the exclusion of "programs for computers" from patentable inventions, a topic which is inherently difficult and on which there is apparently inconsistent authority domestically and in the European Patent Office ("EPO").
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 15:41 |
1 | |
|
I have been following with interest the software patent case of Symbian v Comptroller General for Patents. The Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal by the UKIPO, which seems to move English software patent rulings closer to te EPO Board of Appeals interpretation. [...] The decision has been drafted by Lord Neuberger, and I have to say that it does not go into too much detail of the law, and therefore is a less compelling read than Aerotel and other rulings, but it still contains some interesting discussion. The core issue of the Symbian appeal is rather straightforward. Was the UKIPO justified in excluding Symbian's patent application? Patten J opined that it was not, and the Court of Appeals agrees. Lord Neuberger is of the mind that excluding inventions in computers is arbitrary and unfair.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 15:33 |
1 | |
|
Well, no more unfair than not allowing physicists to patent the laws they discover, or the theorems that mathematicians prove. The point is, software is not "closer to a mathematical method", it *is* a mathematical method, or rather a concatenation of them. All this juridical "on the one hand" and "on the other" in the interests of "balance" does not change this. The current decision is seriously bad news, because it opens the door to even more weaselly patent applications that contort themselves into the magic position to gain the favour of whichever Jesuit is on duty that day.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 15:31 |
1 | |
|
The Samba project, like Mono, provides a cross-platform alternative to closed Microsoft technologies. It is equally vulnerable to the (increasingly toothless) Microsoft patent threats and arbitrary changes in the protocols. Yet Samba is admired. Perhaps the difference is merely in the words of each project's leaders-- the Samba team have never praised Microsoft's technologies, while Miguel de Icaza, the leader of Mono, has.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 15:27 |
1 | |
|
The Court of Appeal said today that complex software such as programmes designed to make mobile phones and computers work faster can be patented in the UK. Previously, manufacturers could claim commercial exclusivity for their products under copyright laws but had less legal protection for underlying technical processes. As a result of the ruling, developers are likely to find it easier to secure approval from the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which has traditionally been reluctant to grant patents to cover software.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 15:26 |
1 | |
|
The outcome of the Bilski case, which should be published in October, might invalidate software patents in the United States. If the CAFC are clever enough to follow the Supreme Court and kick software patents out, you might see the desperate large corporations and their patent department rushing to Congress. Especially if tomorrow the banks values their patent portfolio as void, and not useful to get any credit.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 13:11 |
1 | |
|
TiVo originally won a patent infringement case in 2004 against Dish, which was then named EchoStar Communications. It charged that Dish illegally copied its technology, which allows people to pause, rewind, and record live television on digital video recorders.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 12:42 |
1 | |
|
Here is my summary of the claims that were found to be invalid: US patent 6,104,711: Claim 1 - A DNS (or similar) server translating an address based on a condition; Claim 3 - Like claim 1, where the condition is the status of an endpoint; Claim 11 - Like claim 1, where the condition is a query of an endpoint; US patent 6,282,574: Claim 5 - Like 711.1, where the server returns a phone number (but no condition is involved); Claim 6 - Like 574.5, where the server returns a phone number plus an IP (or similar) address
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 12:41 |
1 | |
|
NetApp sued Sun last year and Sun counter-sued, saying NetApp infringed 22 of its patents. The Sun strategy is to invalidate the six NetApp patents by identifying prior use of the technologies involved (prior art), meaning that NetApp did not itself invent the technology. There have been two strands to this. One has been to ask the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to re-examine the six NetApp patents and test their validity. In June it granted re-examinations on five of the six and invalidated one of them, leaving one down and five to go.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 12:18 |
1 | |
|
Over the years, nearly all limits to patentable subject matter in the U.S. have been removed by the specialized patent court without input from Congress, empirical evidence to justify its decisions, or consideration of values and principles outside of the patent system. Problems related to software patents have sparked calls for patent reform here in the U.S. and have driven efforts to reject legislation authorizing US-style software patents in Europe.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 11:56 |
1 | |
|
A number of seemingly ubiquitous software ideas have been patented: the use of tabs to shift from one hyperlink to another on a web page, the “Add to Shopping Cart” function that appears on every online store, automated online loan requests, and even reducing image size to make a webpage load faster. “Most companies register defensive patents to protect themselves, not offensive ones,” said Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society. “Not many actively pursue patent infringement, but it is still very scary for a small-time entrepreneur.”
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 10:29 |
1 | |
|
In this instance, the only defense a small innovator has is her intellectual property. Without the ability to protect its innovations, it would be insane for a company like Tivo to spend $60 million a year innovating. With inexpensive programming talent available throughout the world, it is relatively simple for large competitors to simple copy and reverse engineer successful technologies and then use their inherent advantages to bully smaller competitors out of the market.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 09:17 |
1 | |
|
Comment: The Clause above introduces a new category called computer implemented invention. The Patents Act cannot make an exception for inventions merely because the performance of this invention requires a computer. There is no provision in patents law for such exceptions to be created.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 08:51 |
1 | |
|
There are now attempts being made in India to bring in software patents using either the EPO or the USPTO practice. This attempt is being supported by a small number of large international software companies, who had earlier benefited from software being free from patents and are now trying to obstruct others who are entering the field. It is not in the interest of India's software industry to have restrictive patent regime, particularly as they switch from being service providers to product developers.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 08:47 |
1 | |
|
This open meeting comes in the wake of the public hearings being conducted by the Indian Patent Office to discuss the recently formulated patent manual. The office has shelved all discussion on software patents and promised an exclusive meeting with stakeholders. Nearly 20 organisations and various stakeholders who participated in the hearing threw up issues ranging from patent laws and principles in general, to specific issues of the “software per se” clause in the patent manual. Submissions made by many stakeholders to the patent office were also discussed.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 08:45 |
1 | |
|
Bangalore: Living up to its status as the country’s Information Technology (IT) capital, Bangalore played host to a different kind of “software lobby” here on Saturday. Unlike most lobbies, this one had no vested interests and no hard-line agenda. In a bid to raise awareness about software patenting and generate a debate among stakeholders, the Free Software community from across the country participated in a national-level meeting against software patents.
|
by: 08 Oct 2008 08:41 |
1 |
