Stopsoftwarepatents

Open-government: Principles for an Open Transition - "Similarly, if the transition chooses to make video accessible on YouTube, releasing the same video simultaneously in a standard, universal format will allow other video sites to syndicate that content as well. Ideally, that format should be nonproprietary. But so long as the content is freely licensed (Principle #1), and free access is secured (Principle #2), transcoding would not be inhibited. The transition would thus not be supporting one platform to the exclusion of others."

Commission: ICT Standardisation - "ICT standardisation faces an increased impact from the inclusion of "patented" technologies in ICT standards and specifications which raises a number of questions to be addressed. For ICT standardisation to continue its role as a major instrument to support competitiveness, to increase interoperability and to respond to industry expectations and societal needs, an adequate balance has to be found between the need for standardised approaches and the interests of IPR owners. Standards developing organisations should be able to implement effective IPR policies while respecting the requirements of competition law."

FSFE: Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents - "Software patents have been a hugely controversial debate, with lines of battle drawn primarily between large corporations holding large patent portfolios and engaged in multiple cross-licensing deals, and the Have-Nots, entrepeneurs, small and medium enterprises, and software users from the student using GNU/Linux all the way to institutional users in governments. This debate got a lot quieter with the rejection of the software patent directive in 2005. Its place in the headlines was taken by other debates, such as standardisaton. Open Standards have been a buzzword for years, but never has this term been discussed more intensively."

EcommerceTimes: Can You Still Patent a Method of Doing Business? - "As e-commerce and related technologies underwent rapid growth in the 1990s, innovation increasingly focused on the manipulation of information. In 1998, a federal appeals court held that methods of doing business and manipulating data were patentable. The same court, however, recently issued a highly anticipated ruling that redefines the scope of patentable subject matter. [...] Moreover, the court indicated that "[p]urported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test, because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.""

Irving Wladawsky-Berger: Software Patents - "It is ironic that if software patents were disallowed altogether, it might cause legitimate software innovations to then be protected as trade secrets, and thus keep them away from open source projects."

Patently-O: Standard Setting and Waiver of Patent Rights - "Because the patentee intentionally failed to disclose its patents, the court agreed that the patents were unenforceable under the equitable doctrine of implied waiver. However, the court limited the scope of the waiver only to products that were compliant with the new (H.264) standard."

OpenDotDotDot: IBM's ex-Mr GNU/Linux Joins Obama Policy Group - "Hmmm... I hope he's taken a closer look at the rationale behind and practical economics and realities of the patent system since this: http://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2005/08/software_patent.html This is the real danger, Glyn: not idiots like Gene Quinn, but thoughtful people like IW-B who nevertheless seem to believe that inventions naturally 'deserve' patents, that the patent system is in trouble but is fundamentally beneficial (irrespective of field or 'industry') and can be made to work by 'rewarding' only 'good' inventions etc. The patent system mythology is strong and unless people like IW-B begin to see through it and ask the fundamental economic and ethical questions, we will have software patents (sorry - CII patents ;)."

SSP: EPO lobbying for a Central Patent Court - "The European Patent Office does not only grant software patents, it also lobbies the legislators to validate them through the creation of a central patent court. Here is what they recently said in a press release: "The report repeatedly calls for the creation of a centralised European patent judiciary and above all, a Community patent to do away with some of the most obvious shortcomings of the present European patent system, a stance which the EPO wholeheartedly endorses. Moreover, the EPO welcomes the report as it provides further insight into applicant behaviour, bringing support to some of the Office's initiatives intending to safeguard or increase the quality of European patents, such as "Raising the bar", to introduce stricter rules related to the filing of divisional applications." Despite the fact that the EPO is only an executive institution, it has also lobbying powers when it comes to define the kind of patent law that the society needs."

EPO: EPO lobbying for a Central Patent Court - "The European Patent Office does not only grant software patents, it also lobbies the legislators to validate them through the creation of a central patent court. Here is what they recently said in a press release: "The report repeatedly calls for the creation of a centralised European patent judiciary and above all, a Community patent to do away with some of the most obvious shortcomings of the present European patent system, a stance which the EPO wholeheartedly endorses. Moreover, the EPO welcomes the report as it provides further insight into applicant behaviour, bringing support to some of the Office's initiatives intending to safeguard or increase the quality of European patents, such as "Raising the bar", to introduce stricter rules related to the filing of divisional applications.""

Mondaq: United States: Federal Circuit Narrows Patent Eligible Subject Matter In In Re Bilski - "Worth noting, however, is that Bilski did not claim a computer implementation of the recited method or a software claim. Thus, the "machine" prong of the machine-or-transformation test remains untested by the Federal Circuit as a result of the Bilski decision. However, the Court noted that in order to pass muster under the machine prong, the use of such a machine must "impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope." Field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity will not suffice. Moreover, the process claim in issue in Bilski was found to "not ... be a software claim." It therefore also remains open as to how or if a software clam can be written to satisfy the transformation prong of the test."

Slashdot: Ninth Anniversary of Amazon 1-Click Injunction - "Nine years ago Monday, Amazon kicked off the Holiday Season by slapping Barnes and Noble with a court injunction barring BN from using a checkout feature that Amazon said represented illegal copying of its patented 1-Click technology. 'We're pleased that Judge Pechman recognized the innovation underlying our 1-Click feature,' said Jeff Bezos in a press release. But an Appellate Court wasn't quite as impressed with Amazon's innovation. Nor were USPTO Examiners who were asked to take another look at the merits of Amazon's 1-Click patent claims. Still, 1-Click lives on, although Amazon's lawyers are currently fighting two separate rejections by USPTO Examiners, burying USPTO Examiners in paper, and employing canceling-and-refiling tactics that some may find reminiscent of Eddie Haskell's chess end-game strategy. So much for Amazon-led patent reform."

P2PNet: Intellectual Property: setting the record straight - "During my rummagings in quest of Linux-related information prior to first installing a distro, I came across various videos where Richard Stallman talked about the merits (and perils) of patents in regard to software. Stallman makes a persuasive case against software patents, viewing them as a form of subsidy granted to patent-holders. Patents “protection” is about one thing -- punishing unauthorized competition. As he puts it: Instead of speaking of “intellectual property”, which invokes that feel-good idea of property and ownership, we should speak of “intellectual monopolies”. For this is precisely what copyrights and patents are: they are monopolies granted by governments for a limited period as part of a bargain - that, in return, those who are granted those monopolies hand them over to the public domain once the term of the monopoly has lapsed. Viewed in this light, it became ever more ironic when advocates of so-called “Free-market capitalism” defend IP “protection”."

EPO: The Commission examines anti-competitive behaviour in the pharmaceutical sector - ""We note with satisfaction that the report does not call the patent system into question, but focuses on the way in which companies make use of patents in the pharmaceutical market. The EPO holds the view that a well-functioning patent system is vital for a sound competition environment", stated EPO President Alison Brimelow. "The Office welcomes the fact that the findings of the report help us to better understand the drivers for the behaviour of the actors in the patent system." The report repeatedly calls for the creation of a centralised European patent judiciary and above all, a Community patent to do away with some of the most obvious shortcomings of the present European patent system, a stance which the EPO wholeheartedly endorses."

Neurope: We need a patent revolution, not a blame game - "Often, the break-even of a drug is only reached in the last month or weeks of patent duration. Taking this into account, it does not seem unfair that big pharma companies use the possibilities that the European patent system offers. The first offer is for such a European system not to exist at all. After the initial filing of a patent to the European Patent Office, the patent itself is transferred to a jungle-like system of national regulations, making a clear cut after the end of the patent duration impossible. The amount of money spent by the originator as well as generic companies is outrageous. [...] It drives both sides away from their core business and delays generic medicines, resulting in a severe cost burden for our health systems. The Commission should now do the only right thing. It should not start the blame game; it should not condemn big pharma for a legitimate strategy. It should start the process of reforming the European patent system."

EuropeanVoice: Commission accuses drug developers of blocking rivals - "An EU-wide patent? The inquiry has revived calls for the creation of a single European Union patent, an issue that regulators have struggled with for 30 years due to disagreements over the languages used. Kroes said that the preliminary findings of the sector inquiry supported the case for a community patent, which she argued could help avoid litigation and cut costs."

PatentlyO: Patenting Tax Strategies Under Bilski - "Except for the few patent holders and Accenture, the tax strategy business community has been largely anti-patent – going so far as to lobby congress to introduce legislation to create a specific exception that would block enforcement of those patents. In Bilski, the Federal Circuit refused to categorically exclude any particular fields of business or technology from the scope of patent protection. The court specifically mentioned software and business methods as still patentable. Presumably, tax strategies are still patentable as well. The closest the court came to creating an exclusion is for purely 'mental' processes – where each step of the process could be performed in the human mind."

TheAge: Quicker, cheaper solutions needed for patent law - "A further possibility, which is being trialled in the US in relation to software patents, is to expose patent applications to comment from those in industry. This would enable interested players to draw prior art to the attention of the examiner, and potentially also to identify ambiguity or lack of clarity. This would presumably assist examiners greatly in dealing with complex and new technologies."

ZDNet: RPX: Can it defend against patent trolls? - "The startup–RPX Corp.–is a so-called defensive patent aggregator. RPX–short for Rational Patent–aims to reduce the costs associated with non-practicing entities (NPEs). These NPEs–known as patent trolls to you and me–acquire the rights to patents and then launch lawsuits. RPX is more diplomatic in its press release, but that’s the general idea. IBM and Cisco are signed up with RPX, which has funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Charles River Ventures. I had a briefing scheduled for today, but it appears the Wall Street Journal has spilled the beans."

LWN: FTC Announces First in Series of Hearings on Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace - "The US Federal Trade Commission has announced the first of a possible series of public hearings to explore the evolving market for intellectual property (IP). The hearings will be held beginning on December 5, 2008, in Washington, DC. "The patent system has experienced significant change since the FTC released its first IP Report in October 2003, and more changes are under consideration. The courts and patentees are exploring the full implications of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions on injunctive relief, patentability, and licensing issues. Congress has considered sweeping legislative patent reform, and new debates on the appropriate methods for calculating infringement damages have engaged the patent community. New business models for buying, selling and licensing patents have emerged and evolved since 2003. In addition, there is new learning regarding the operation of the patent system and its contribution to innovation and competition.""

Mondaq: India: Patent Protection For Computer Program - "From the above discussion it is clear that probably patent is the most appropriate form of intellectual property protection for computer software and hardware. Unlike copyright, which protects final works, software patents, which protect against the imitation of features, allows the protection of these elementary ideas, and thus prevent whoever to réalise a program implementing a protected idea. Software patents, by allowing their holders to claim elemenary ideas, thus constitutes an extremely powerful monopoly-building tool, because the holder of a single patent can prevent the selling of all software implementing this idea, whatever their application domains can be."