There are no patents involved in the SAS Institute v. World Programing Ltd case, but there’s a very interesting statement from the European Court of Justice’s legal advisors, the Advocates-General: To accept that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such would amount to making it possible Read more…
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…
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.
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.
Below is the text, and links to machine translations to English, of the recent German court ruling “X ZR 27/07”.
An unexpected, good result: after more than a year and a half of review (referral G3/08), the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has declared that the four questions posed were all inadmissible. The patent office is thus does not have the power to decide for itself whether or not software should be patentable.
Following a public consultation in April 2009, the European Patent Offices’s internal “Enlarged Board of Appeal” today published their review of their policy of granting software patents. Early analysis suggests they rubber stamp their current practice.
When you buy a digital camera, can holders of video patents claim ownership of your videos? They certainly claim to. When looking into this, I found an interesting 2008 opinion from the US Supreme Court that suggests, to me (IANAPL), that "exhaustion" through "first sale" might save our bacon: Quanta v. LGE.
(Note: the original title incorrectly said “2010”)
Germany’s Federal High Court, the Bundesgerichtshof, handed out a ruling that some say upholds a software patent. The ruling was published as a PDF. I converted it to text here so that we can use online translation services to read it in English. Below is the full text in German. Here are links to automatic translations to English:
Another US district court has made a ruling based on Bilski – rejecting three patents, although giving ambiguous comments about one of them. Together with two previous rulings based on Bilski, we can look at how it might be used, and what are its shortcomings.
(more…)
At Monday’s hearing (court transcript), neither party had the objective of abolishing software patents. The Bilski case is about a business method patent, so there was Mr. Jakes arguing that business methods should be patentable, and Mr. Stewart arguing that they shouldn’t. For software to be excluded, we’re relying on the judges (to whom we wrote an amicus brief, as did many others). There’re a few worrying statements, but there’s also a lot of hope.
The US Supreme Court has very promptly posted a transcript of today’s oral hearing of the Bilski case (as pdf). I’ve made a HTML version, posted in this story. (See also ESP’s analysis)
(more…)
Reports are starting to appear from today’s hearing of the Bilski case at the US Supreme Court. I’ll keep updating as they appear. The court transcript is now online: 08-964.pdf (and we have a text version). In Re Bilski – Transcript of Today’s Oral Argument at the US Supreme Court Read more…