News picks
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
| Thread name | Started | Posts | Recent post |
|
The current system of software patents in the United States makes it too easy for the Katzers of the world to come after others for big bucks, even when there is significant doubt regarding the validity of their own patents. The poor defendants have to spend millions just to prove that the patent being pursued against them isn't valid, bankrupting themselves in the process.
|
by: 03 Oct 2008 10:39 |
1 | |
|
Software patents were not created by Congress, but by courts, at the same time as business method patents. These are often very broadly drawn, and holders use their power to tax real innovation.
|
by: 03 Oct 2008 10:37 |
1 | |
|
One of the biggest challenges facing the patent system right now—especially in the IT industry—is the fragmentation of patent rights. The combination of more patents, broader patents, and increasingly complex products has made patent clearance extremely difficult for high-tech firms.
|
by: 02 Oct 2008 13:25 |
1 | |
|
Staff at the European Patent Office went on strike accusing the organization of corruption: specifically, stretching the standards for patents in order to make more money. One of the ways that the EPO has done this is by issuing software patents in defiance of the treaty that set it up.
|
by: 02 Oct 2008 13:24 |
1 | |
|
The FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)) is lobbying again in the fight against software patents: there's a draft petition being created at http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/draft to which I have added my comments. They won the last round in 2005, succeeding in blocking EU legislation to permit software patents, but it seems to have made no difference on the ground, as the European Patent Office continues to grant them at a rate of knots. Presumably the EPO is happy to take the fees and leave the courts to sort out whether the patents are actually valid or not.
|
by: 02 Oct 2008 13:22 |
1 | |
|
The US (and Australian) more liberal position on patents for software has traditionally differed from the UK where software patents are related to thought processes, which are not patentable. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) has allowed companies to patent computer programs if they can demonstrate some sort of innovative technical effect. This may for example be something like increased memory access. The case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal is not binding on the EPO member states and different national courts acting on different cases may take a different view of patentability. The position on software patents in the UK has been recently considered by the High Court and UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 20:34 |
1 | |
|
Bernard Bilski’s invention is a pure business method patent. No computers are involved. No fancy processes are used. It’s simply a hedging transaction. When a consumer buys a commodity at one price, they are able to enter into a second contract as a hedge under his invention. The subject and the claims are a little arcane for most, so this is a nutshell introduction that misses the nuance.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 17:28 |
1 | |
|
The Linux Foundation has been operating some "patent quality initiatives" with the U.S. Patent Office, which unfortunately may in the end only serve to strengthen the patents to which they are applied. We must recognize that the Linux Foundation's steering board is composed of the very largest of corporations, who in general stand to profit from the present system while the rest of the business world loses. While the foundation does excellent work for us in many areas, they would have a severe conflict with their large-corporate membership if the radical reform necessary to solve the software patent problem was to to enter their agenda.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 16:51 |
1 | |
|
The solution to the subprime patents problem is get rid of them, and to move from a business model based on code contamination and lawsuits (hello SCO) to one of code sharing and collaboration. There's no halfway house, because open source and software patents are inherently incompatible. But what's really interesting in this is that just as there are close similarities between the problems of subprime patents and subprime mortgages, so there may be important parallels between how we should deal with them.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 16:48 |
1 | |
|
If someone copies you, you continue to innovate and beat them to the market. If you really understand your market better, then you can out-innovate them. And, despite continuous worries about “big companies” copying startups, history shows that it’s not quite so easy. If the startup is successful, it’s not so easy to just copy, because the startup has built up a reputation, which isn’t so easy to copy. Witness how Netflix outran Blockbuster, despite Blockbuster copying Netflix. Witness how Google outran both Yahoo and Microsoft. Witness how Microsoft outran IBM. It’s not so easy to just “copy.” And just copying isn’t enough to actually gain marketshare.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 12:38 |
1 | |
|
The Community patent is another French priority. Do you expect any progress in the coming months or even an agreement to be struck by the end of the year for which some have hoped? What was the progress made under Slovenian Presidency? Patents are a crucial element in the promotion of innovation and growth and are of crucial importance for SMEs. The fact is that the accumulated cost of filing and maintaining patents in the European Patent System or individually in many EU member states are still much higher than for our major competitors, and this constitutes a clear competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very grateful for the impressive work of the Portuguese and Slovenian presidencies, which prepared the ground for a possible consensus. There is a package now on the table that is being discussed at both, political and technical level. Yes, I do have hope that a solution can be found.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 12:35 |
1 | |
|
Readers may recall several posts that have been put up by SpicyIP relating to the controversy that surrounds the eligibility of Software Patents under the new Draft Patent Manual. One major issue of concern was the lack of public consultation during the formation of this text. In response to this, a National Public Meeting on Software Patents is being organized in Bangalore on 4th October with several prominent speakers being invited.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 12:16 |
1 | |
|
Diebold Inc. recently received seven patents for its Campaign Office software. Many of Campaign Office's unique features, such as its ability to identify individual users to deliver targeted communications and its delivery of customized data via multiple graphical screens, are protected through the patents.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 12:12 |
1 | |
|
Software patents in particular stiffle innovation. The industry grew to its heights without them, but patents are the #1 mechanism being used against open source and small busineses. The little guy is the last to win from patent protection. Besides, it's simply amoral to think that a patent can be given for so much lack of innovation found in so many patents. Software is a writing and should be protected by copyrights and trade secrets.
|
by: 01 Oct 2008 12:11 |
1 | |
|
This was the title of an article written one year ago. Here is the end, which is happening nowadays: "What does this mean for the patent system? David Martin points out that three separate bubbles are about to pop at the same time: consumer debt, mortgage debt, and patent debt. Each of these bubbles will cause enormous damage to those institutions who were over-committed, and most certainly to those who helped create the bubble. The patent offices will not go unrewarded for helping to create another Great Depression, by printing trillions of Euro worth of funny money."
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 17:29 |
1 | |
|
Intellectual Ventures is moving into India says a report published this weekend. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Livemint Lounge, IV has signed deals to acquire patents from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, IIT in Bombay, while it is close to signing an agreement with Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 13:58 |
1 | |
|
New Delhi: Individual inventors and research organizations here may find their patents turning liquid with the imminent entry of Intellectual Ventures Llc., a controversial company that owns an estimated 20,000 patents and is in the market for as many more as it can lay its hands on. The company has already entered into agreements to buy patents from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, and is close to signing an agreement with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, India’s largest research and development organization, said a person familiar with the developments who did not want to be named.
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 13:32 |
1 | |
|
Software and services are new subject matter for patents, although to a different extent across countries. The impact of patents on innovation and diffusion in this area has yet to be systematically evaluated, and such evaluation is sorely needed. The quality and breadth of software patents also need to be monitored, and patent offices should keep up their efforts to systematise their experience and knowledge base. The role of patents in the expanding world of open source software also needs to be evaluated.
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 13:11 |
1 | |
|
As a result of our investment in innovation, Microsoft has created a large, diverse portfolio of intellectual property (IP) that is now available for licensing. This portfolio includes source code, schemas, protocols, and documentation as well as associated copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets. Our policy is to license this IP under commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Please visit www.microsoft.com
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 11:42 |
1 | |
|
The days when US attorneys would diligently prosecute Ch II amendments in direct dialogue with EPO Examiners. The EPO fax machines were never so hot as they were, back in those days. Frustration, even fury, was the almost inevitable result in most every case, despite goodwill on both sides. The cause was the complete incompatibility between US law and the PCT (that is, EPC Art 52-56, 84 and 123). Harmony and mutual respect between Europe and the USA requires that that awful period never be allowed to happen again, and the wise heads in the EPO know it very well. Anyway, no need to worry. Given the EPO's success (Exrs and management both take a bow please) in getting their EESRs out double quick, I can't imagine any Applicant driving to the EPO on the PPH, and asking for fast track on the basis of a claim already allowed in the USPTO. There won't be a case, and there wouldn't be any point. Why has Alison signed up to the PPH? Well, everybody else has, and I can well imagine that the AC
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 08:29 |
1 |
