MPEG LA is blatantly trying to claim a monopoly on online video. The patent system is failing for software, and initiatives to “fix” the system are not working. A clear exclusion of software ideas from patentability is the only workable solution.
VP8 is an attempt to free the software industry and all software developers from this patent troll. MPEG LA did not develop VP8 but it wants to own it nonetheless.
The US Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill on “patent reform” will not address the main patent problems of software developers.
The bill takes aim at a problem experienced by a small number of large companies, namely, the problem of patent trolls litigating in the hope of a pay-out at the end of a long legal process. Ironically, many of the large companies that will benefit from this bill are the cause of the real patent problems for software developers.
(Temporary note: For statements supporting this article’s title, see en.swpat.org/wiki/raising_standards…)
The below text is a notice from the USPTO about tests they’re removing in order to make it less difficult to pass the test for obviousness. Low obviousness standards (silly patents) is not the mains cause of problems, but it aggravates already-problematic domains such as software patents.
An official PDF version of the text is available on ipeg.eu.
Canada’s Federal Court (FCAFC) has ruled that Amazon’s 1-click shopping patent describes patentable subject matter. Amazon’s patent was rejected last year by the Canadian Patent Appeal Board on grounds that business methods are not patentable subject matter, but that rejection has been thrown out by the Federal Court. Analysis of Read more…
I’ve added a wiki page for analysing the "Cabinet for the blind" example. It’s an example that was used in a 1980 amicus brief for the Diamond v. Diehr case in the USA. Below are the details. In looking into this, I also turned up a few interesting quotes about pen and paper patents. Comments welcome on the wiki.
The below letter is ESP’s submission to the USPTO 2010 post-Bilski consultation. The best part of the Bilski decision was that it left the door open for excluding software from the patent system in a future ruling. Instructions about what has to change today are a little more subtle, but we’ve formalised three here which we hope the USPTO will take into account.
To prepare a submission for the USPTO’s Bilski consultation (deadline: 27 sept), I’ve been reviewing the various analyses of the Bilski decision. I think the best was Dan Ravicher’s (of SFLC and PubPat). It was an audio presentation, so below is a transcript I made. You can find the audio on softwarefreedom.org.
Below is the text from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18424.pdf
To help ESP reply to this consultation, please contribute to this wiki page: USPTO 2010 consultation – deadline 27 sept.
Formatting of the below text is a work in progress (25 Aug 2010). This is the second of two related documents published on news.swpat.org; the other is USPTO’s 101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet – as text.
The USPTO is seeking comment, until 27 Sep 2010, on how to interpret the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision.
To help ESP reply to this consultation, please contribute to this wiki page: USPTO 2010 consultation – deadline 27 sept.
Below is a text published (pages 3 and 4) by the USPTO when announcing this call for comment. This is the first of two related documents published on news.swpat.org; the other is USPTO interim guidelines request for comment – as text.
Australian residents and nationals, please sign this letter:
For non-Australians: please contact people in Australia to raise awareness of this.
New Zealand’s government has announced that they will not further modify their proposed bill and that they still agree with those “opposing the granting of patents for computer programs on the grounds it would stifle innovation and restrict competition.” (Background: New Zealand)
Some people have asked where they can read the patent which was the object of Bilski v. Kappos. The answer is that it’s a patent application and as such it’s confidential. However, the key excerpts did get published via the opinions of the various courts which rejected it. Keep in mind that the application may have been modified since its filing in 2006, and the authors have expressed their intention to modify it and try again to get it granted. With that said, below is the text we know of.
[UPDATE: We have almost the full text, thanks to contributor Gibus]
Below is the court’s opinion, as text. For analysis, go to Bilski: analysis of Supreme Court decision.
Here it is: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
ESP is collecting third-party analyses and we’re working on our own analysis here: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski:_analysis_of_Supreme_Court_decision.
Scotusblog.com has some details. Justice Kennedy wrote the court’s opinion. For anyone who can’t connect, here are their live-blog posts:
Everyone expects the US Supreme Court to publish their decision on the "Bilski" case today (June 28th 2010). The court has to decide on the validity of a patent on a business method, but that’s not the main issue. Everyone expects that patent to be rejected, but the main issue is that to reject a patent the court must give a general test and explain why this patent fails that test. We want to know if they’ll propose a test which will also be failed by some or all software patents.
No Bilski today. The only date left on the calendar for announcing decisions is Monday June 28th. The court confirmed today that Monday will be the last day for announcing decisions, so either we get Bilski then, or there’s a very remote possibility that they will hold Bilski until the Read more…
NZICT (who’s NZICT?) reports that they convinced the politician in charge of the Patents Bill, Hon Simon Power, to do a u-turn and open the floodgates for software patents. The report was posted on a patent lawyer’s blog, then deleted, but copies have been mirrored:
More details below. People in NZ will have to work on this to prevent a catastrophe.
Once again, after a tense morning, the opinions for the day are all announced and there’s still no Bilski. The remaining opinion dates are Thursday June 24th (announced last Friday) and Monday the 28th. For anyone new to the case, the background is described at en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos_(2010,_USA).
Below is the text, and links to machine translations to English, of the recent German court ruling “X ZR 27/07”.
The tension mounts. The additional session announced by the court is now over, and there’s still no Bilski. The two remaining days on the court’s calendar for opinions this term are June 21st and 28th. (For background about the case, see en.swpat.org: Bilski v. Kappos)
