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."
Please comment on the draft petition!
"if it contributes knowledge to the state of the art in a field of applied natural science." should be in bold.
Worried by:
"Privatisation of patent examination may be an option."
My view of the world is that economics, and the private sector, is outside of morality, which is enforced, albeit inadequately, by politics (legislative, executive, judiciary).
Removing anything as vital as examination from the political control, which is all that we have, is I think very dangerous.
Put it differently, how can a group of concerned citizens control the execution of a public function performed outside politics?
We put currently a high value on public awareness and our own lobbying, because we do not have political power on this issue. But our goal should be to enshrine our positons into law, and let the administration apply it. Not to introduce other players, legitimately motivated by money and career instead of the public good. When they are baught, using money we do not have, we barely have grounds for complaining.
Our ultimate power is opinion tranformed into votes. I think votes have a more direct impact on an administration than on a private company.
Of course, we might hope to tender for patent examination calls, with competent people favorable to our positions. But so will the other side.
There is frustration with the current patent offices. But they are, albeit indirectly, our employees. And we have a chain of command to them, albeit imperfect. When evaluation goes public, we weaken the chain of command.
It will be hard to change the entrenched habits of the current Patent Offices, which is the current problem. But I fear that it would be harder still to control private evaluators in the future.
Sincerely,
Pierre Van Nypelseer, AITECH S.A., vanyp at scarlet.be
Incidently, I do not wish to remain anonymous. Unfortunately, I had to cheat the system to get my email up there. Any email address seems automatically removed.
The idea is that privatisation of examination may actually be a very good thing as it changes the institutional incentives.
As I said, "hard to change the entrenched habits of the Patent Offices". But what beneficial incentives do you see there? Will they be sufficient, and what control will be left if they are not sufficient?
My position is that:
- usually revolutions do not work. The new state tends to be worse than the original, until it improves (except US)
- NGO give some relief
- but the real solution is to reclaim the state
I think the notion of incentives is too clever, and it digs the hole deeper. Working for the public good is mandatory in state institutions, and must be enforced.
The risk with incentives are:
- the consequences of specific incentives are hard to predict. The only predictors are ideological.
- that obscurity will prevent a sound political debate on the choice of appropriate incentives
- and in an universe governed by incentives, not by enforced duty, the powerfull can always offer better incentives.
Of course, the public service incentive also exists. But the overall current state of affairs shows that, if it is not enforced as a duty, it is unsufficient.
Pierre Van Nypelseer, AITECH S.A., vanyp at scarlet.be
Very interesting because we have totally different views.
"I think the notion of incentives is too clever, and it digs the hole deeper. Working for the public good is mandatory in state institutions, and must be enforced."
- I recommend you to read the STOA report of the European Parliament on patent matters.
- Incentive means for me here: how does the institutional environment of an examiner manipulate him to grant bad patents or his institutions to lobby for lowering standards. There are strong institutional interests in the expansion of the system because otherwise a patent office would be institutionally neutral to its granting task which is not the case. In fact they even aggressively lobby the legislator.
If we want to change these factors we need to change the incentives of the patent offices and exercise democratic control.
The trade union of the EPO examiners complained bitterly about the work conditions of examiners that make it more difficult for them to reject patents. Pompidou, the former president of the EPO even wanted to pay bonuses to examiners based on patents granted.
The idealistic phrase of the "public good" mission is not helpful here but sure that is the goal. I am not speaking of a kind of "bonus" system but of a larger institutional reform. Patent bureaucracies become more and more unable to solve the examination backlog problem although they expand their staff like no other government agencies.
Sorry "as in the corpus of patents" is too complex to understand.
"corpus of patents" means "all patents (which are in force)", the library of all patents, add to this those applications which are in the pipeline and where you have a probability of granting. Here a double risk applies: You don't know what will be granted in 4-5 years that was applied for today. Often patentees really don't make a difference between patents and applications. If you want to convince your investors you cannot wait 4-5 years.
Corpus is a professional term for a total library of documents, it is heavily used in editorial science.
The phase is "as is the corpus of patents" not "as in the corpus": software is complex and the corpus of patents is complex.
You have to use simpler terms.
I would remove the "corpus" thing and keep the "Software is complex and typically may violate hundreds of patents."
This everybody understands. And the corpus "all patents granted and pending" should go to the explanatory page.
New item3:
is already covered by item1:
Also mind that the petition is worldwide
I do not see the relation between "petition is worldwide" and the fact that item3 is already covered by item1.
Thanks to the great input of you and externals I reworded the first two points. Thanks in particular to Rene M. I am still not pleased with the use of the word "idea" in paragraph 2 but I cannot use "inventions" and "concepts" was no good term either. Following the criticism of Georg I weakened the emphasis of studies in the first argument.
I acknowledge the criticism of the reward teaching of Reinier but it is not the point in 2. You can dissent with a teaching and still argue against, the emphasis here is not on reward but that patents mean rights for the wrong object, an object which does not need to incentivised as it is not scarce and an object whose disclosure doesn't make a difference.
In more indecent wording 2 is: "Software patents are a bonus granted for poop that prevent others to poop". The use of key wordings as "reward"
and "disclosure" is used made because these phrases are common in the patent discourse.
The first sentence of 1 lacks precision and is oversimplified but I leave it that way
We've all seen the sickening contents of the patent databases: duplicate or overlapping software patents; often absurdly broad/trivial/obvious software patents; software patents for non-novel 'inventions'. Independent re-invention is no defence and you are guilty until proven innocent in the Patent Courts even when pre-invention is involved. There appears to be little if any will in the system to change any of this and good reason to believe that only weakly effective changes could be made even if there was such a will. Frauds are being perpetrated and licences to steal and extort are being handed out and in the absence of strong economic evidence that software patents are a significant overall benefit to society, this is an intolerable state of affairs. It is a moral outrage.
Thank you for your input! The corrections have been made.
It's late, because they waited for their monthly board meeting, but Software in the Public Interest, the non-profit foundation behind the Debian project and many other meritorious efforts, has signed the petition. There's no other place for corporate rather than individual signatures, so I'm entering theirs here. - Bruce Perens
We are gonna setup a special form for companies and associations once the petition is final.
The more important thing right now it to put forward comments on the content of the text, in order to have a high quality text.
I don't mean to rush the project, but is there a reason why the official petition hasn't been launched yet? I thought we were sending it in on the 24th. Are we just waiting on more signatures?
I'm in no rush, don't get me wrong! But this is the first big free software project I've ever really gotten involved in, and I'm afraid that it's losing steam and won't be sent at all! That would not be good at all. What's happening on the other end of this site?
~ BP
PS: Sorry for the anonymous post… I just don't feel like making an account.
We are asking some friends to review the text of the petition. It should be ready soon.
Because 23 Sept a user named "zoobab" changed the whole petition text and thus the text needs to maturate again. It will be released when it's ready.
It is not crucial to launch it now. The petition is aimed to become a longterm project. It aims to be a replacement for the noepatents petition that collected ~300 000 signatures over 5 years but was heavily outdated and European-only. So ssp.org will be very generic and worldwide. SSP.eu (which is not ready yet, developed by a competing Berlin team) would focus on specific European messages and requirements for a patent reform.
So "quality" of the ssp.org text and the message goes over "time to market". We are trying to simplify and condense the message. More review is needed.
What is the (is there a) relation to the petition at http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ ? —akf
org woldwide - wikidot based, educational
eu European - own platform, coalition building
Both campaigns are good friends.
Item 3 has: 'Inventors' may deliberately phrase their applications very broadly and […]
Well, I would replace "may" with "often". This is not just an obscure theory, but it happens. —akf
It is what patent attorneys *have to do*. It is a negotiation process. But if its negotiable then it is no "static" broadness.
Add your comment
Add a new comment