Planet FFII

"I have long since lost hope that those who are truly anti-patent and anti-software zealots will ever come to accept that software should be patentable. For reasons that are beyond me they will not even admit that software can be patented. Talking to such a lunatic fringe is hardly worth the time it takes, or the adjida it causes, and seems to approximate a real life Monty Python sketch where the people who claim to have the far superior intellect have such narrow minds that even in the face of overwhelming proof they cling to the irrational and simply incorrect view that software is in fact math and everyone knows math isn’t patentable. Yes, the lunacy is high, very high indeed. So high that the only reason worth continuing to write articles like this is to hopefully prevent the overall anti-patent and anti-invention hysteria that seems to be gaining steam. But the real goal is to try and make sure that any policy makers, decision makers and even those who wear black robes and work at that hallowed place on the corner of First Street, NE and East Capitol Street understand that the steam engine of the 21st century is software, and software must be patentable!"

Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/02/software-new-engine-must-be-patentable/id=4371/

"According to Remnant, the Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously and, should a rights holder claim a patent infringement, the board would commit to a review of the claim. Currently, the board as received no claims of infringement against the Mono stack and is unaware of any claims being received by any other similar project. As patents are generally registered to protect against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate, the board feel that as there is currently no claim of infringement, the patent itself is not a "sufficient reason to warrant exclusion from the Ubuntu Project"."

Source: http://www.h-online.com/open/Ubuntu-to-continue-using-Mono--/news/113674

"However, opponents of a unified patent system say just the opposite. "With the financial crisis and climate change as looming priorities, the Swedish presidency is going to be hard-pressed to move forward an agenda that has been mired in deep political fights for the last thirty years," said Benjamin Henrion, president of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII). The FFII argues that a Community Patent will make it easier to pass software patents in Europe, and it says a single patent litigation area is merely a way to circumvent the legal authority of the European Court of Justice, which it trusts could safeguard the E.U. from software patents. "While large US software firms keep up their hopes for cheap enforceable software patents in Europe, the facts on the ground suggest that this debate will crawl, not run," Henrion said."

Source: http://www.itworld.com/legal/70147/sweden-aims-high-creation-single-eu-patent-system

"A Linux developer has published a new kernel patch that provides a workaround to avoid Microsoft's patents on the FAT filesystem. The patch, which has undergone extensive legal review by patent lawyers, could make it possible to use FAT on Linux without having to pay licensing fees to Microsoft."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/vfat-linux-patch-could-circumvent-microsofts-patent-claims.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

"As the Federal Circuit and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences continue to decide cases on patentable subject matter by applying the Bilski test, practitioners find it more difficult to draft reliable method claims to software and business procedures. Still to be explored by the court are the limits of the exception they drew in the Bilski decision for methods that transform data directly representative of physical objects or substances. The example discussed by the court in Bilski is the transformation of x-ray attenuation data, produced by a computed tomography scanner, into a particular visual depiction of a physical object."

Source: http://www.pli.edu/product/webcast_detail.asp?id=59893

"But worst of all, the article presents Spangenberg as always being right and always having big companies settle (or that he wins his cases). You would think that any profile on Spangenberg would include little facts like that he was caught shuffling patents around in order to sue companies multiple times over the same patent — despite a settlement promising not to. Doing so eventually cost Spangenberg $4 million. Robin Hood? Or how about his attempts to stretch what highly questionable patents cover? For example, patent 5,493,490, which covers a system for making electronic proposals to buy cars (which, yes, you would think seems obvious enough, but what do you know?), which Spangenberg is asserting against dozens of companies who don't sell cars, but do sell other stuff online."

Source:

"If rumour is correct and President Obama’s administration manages to install Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by October in time for the Court’s next term, she may be presiding over the much-anticipated judgment in Bilski. The AmeriKat’s brief investigation into Sotomayor’s intellectual property decisions seems to show her leaning in favor of larger corporations and rights holders. However, this limited evidence and Sotomayor’s few judgments concerning patent cases have not given the AmeriKat any definitive guidance on how to predict Sotomayor’s approach to Bilski. If it is anything like her ex-husband’s stance, however, Sotomayor’s judgment will not be forming part of any ground-breaking judgment that many are hoping. Where the AmeriKat has failed to predict Sotomayor’s attitude towards patent claims, she is eager to hear your views. To help you along your way, the AmeriKat suggests you look Sotomayor’s responses to the required Senate Committee of the Judiciary questionnaire."

Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/06/letter-from-amerikat_29.html

"“We must moreover continue to attempt to harmonise the practise of granting patents for computer-implemented inventions at the European level. This is to be attempted by a common European patent court system (EPLA) in which the member states can voluntarily participate. Thereby a unified procedure and legal certainty are achieved.” —German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology"

Source: http://media.ffii.org/HSF2009/proceedings/ssp.html

"8. Central Caselaw “Baumann added that the new court was not intended to "codify software patents", but it was hoped it would provide better intellectual property protection for inventions with embedded software, such as mobile phones and satellite navigation systems.”—James Murray, IT Week […] 10. Saint Graal „2009 must be the year for the negotiations in Brussels a breakthrough in the creation of the Community patent and a European patent court“ —Brigitte Zypries, German Ministry of Justice […] 11. UPLS = United Patent Litigation System International treaty Treaty where EU could join Patent injunctions from Turkey No counter legislator Hand picked judges"

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/zoobab/software-patents-in-europe-via-caselaw-of-a-central-patent-court

"But the main argument for continuing the discussions is the need for it, Josefsson said: "The urgency of making the patent system in Europe less costly and more accessible to particular small and medium-sized enterprises is there." The software industry supports the Swedish efforts. Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, said: “The Swedish presidency’s commitment to move the EU Community Patent forward is a breath of fresh air. We wish the new presidency all the success in their negotiations to achieve the agreement that SMEs have been waiting for so long." "

Source: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/01/european-patent-system-court-top-priority-under-swedish-eu-presidency/

"NZ government is about to pass a new Patents Act. In the 8-year review, they seemingly forgot to consider the impacts of patents on computer software! Submissions on the bill are being accepted till 2 July, so we need to move fast. Make a submission now!"

Source: http://civicactions.com/blog/2009/jun/22/urgent_unlimited_software_patents_new_zealand_act_now

"The problem here is that SAP likes software patents. In another obscure filing, this time to the European Patent Office, it spends pages arguing that the current, already-porous regime for granting patents on software in Europe should be loosened even further. Other ideas that SAP objects to in the European report include “Promote OSS initiatives targeted to commoditize software products of interest to European industries,” and the creation of the “European OSS forge” and “The European OSS test bed.” "

Source: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/sap-open-sources-friend-or-foe

"Regional and national development of industry clusters are a fundamental component of modern strategic economic policy. Although Germany's Rhine-Main-Neckar cluster has one of the largest global concentration of resources it has not yet developed to the extent of similar clusters in the US, India or Finland. Impediments common to many European clusters include international awareness, access to venture capital, and lack of political support including an underdeveloped European software patent system."

Source: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2383940/

"A jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has ruled against Microsoft Corp for willfully infringing US Patent 5,787,449 owned by a Toronto firm, i4i LP. On May 20, 2009, Microsoft was found liable to pay USD 200 million in damages resulting from lost profits and royalties, and the amount could be later increased by the judge if there is a finding of willful infringement."

Source: http://www.linexlegal.com/content.php?content_id=93616

A strong lobbying group is trying to redefine open standards. Open standards is known as the winning concept behind the Internet. But Microsoft and others want to change open standards into their needs, into something you will have to pay to use in the new European Interoperability Framework.

You can read about the proposed changes here in EIF2 on the EU-commission website. The current clear version is described here, its quite simply Royalty Free use.

This week has been busy for me, three seminars on open standards and open innovation, the last with the author of the much cited book called "open innovation" by Henry Chesbrough. He spoke of how Royalty Free meant that companies like IBM could sell more hardware and services on the marked by letting development free around the eclipse project and several other softwares and standards.

From all discussions held this week, its clear that the EU is being pushed away from a winning concept of open standards. Charging for open standards would change the innovative landscape on the Internet fundamentally. We know from the economy price winner Eric S Meskin at researchoninnovation.org that software patents are hurting and stifling innovation on the software side of the Internet.

Rescue plan for open standards!

Either EU remains committed to open standards or the term "open standards" need to be removed from the new interoperability framework decision. Perhaps using just standards as in formal standards from ISO would be more adequate? Open standards should not be stolen from the winning innovative Internet realm just because the greed of those that prefer royalty based industry standards along those lines.

Rescue plan for European Interoperability Framework

Does EU want to keep open standards as a requirement for e-government interoperability? I think it does, but fooling decision makers by trolling the meaning of the term does not help us here. It would not help the market to buy or invest in open standards either. eGovernment waters could become blurred and murky. It also puts those that aid in development under payment requirements and forces most to use large vendor solutions instead of community improvements. Will that help public e-services and e-governments in Europe?

Talk to responsible governments.

There will be votes about this soon in the EU-council, now the continuation of the project is under decision. Get things right - save all open innovation from these tricksters!


Wikipedia has a good article on open standards:

" The term "open" is usually restricted to royalty-free technologies while the term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis." (at least still)

/jonas

The US Supreme Court will soon hear Bilski on why software and business method patents are so good/harmful for the US economy. I was trying to find out on Google and other search engines where was the Bilski's pending patent application, and I end up writing to the new USPTO President and ex-IBM David Kappos. I finally got an answer from a USPTO official that the Bilski's pending patent application cannot be seen by the public:

Bahr, Robert <vog.otpsu|rhaB.treboR#vog.otpsu|rhaB.treboR>
to gro.iiff|noirnehb#gro.iiff|noirnehb
date Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM
subject Copy of the Bilski pending patent application

Dear Mr. Henrion,

I understand that you have a question as to why the USPTO's administrative file of the Bilski application is not available to the public. The application at issue in Bilski is not a published or patented application, and thus must be maintained in confidence under 35 USC 122(a). The Bilski application was the subject of an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), and the relevant portions of the USPTO's administrative file of the Bilski application was filed with the Federal Circuit during this appeal. These portions of the USPTO's administrative file of the Bilski application are part of the Federal Circuit's records, and any member of the public may inspect the Federal Circuit's records. The USPTO's administrative file for the Bilski application, however, is not open to public inspection. This is explained at MPEP 1216.01.

I hope you find this information useful

Regards,

Robert W. Bahr
Senior Patent Counsel
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy

For those who wants to submit an Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court, this is nearly mission impossible without the pending patent application. Some blog mention claim 1, but this is not enough to understand what the patent is about:

1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of: (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate correspoding to a risk postion of said consumer; (b) identifying … (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and…

"A lot of people still fail to realise that NBC is very much a General Electric drone, so its information on energy matters will be affected accordingly. This is a recipe for disaster. Here is more coverage from MarketWatch and from Rupert Murdoch’s press. Microsoft getting closer to NBC Universal is the equivalent of Microsoft getting closer to General Electric, which recently they did directly when they announced a deal. Later on they also lobby together for software patents in Europe."

Source: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/22/microsoft-general-electric-propaganda/

"The US Supreme Court will soon hear Bilski on why software and business method patents are so good for the US economy. I was trying to find out on the internet where the Bilski's pending patent application was published, and I ended up writing to the new USPTO President and ex-IBM David Kappos. I finally got an answer from an USPTO official that the Bilski's pending patent application cannot be seen by the public."

Source: http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-164348/uspto-refuses-to-disclose-bilski-s-pending-patent-application

"There is a requirement that any XPS implementation that is distributed, licensed or sold contain a notice in the source code of the implementation indicating that Microsoft may have intellectual property associated with the implementation and to provide a link to where the license may be obtained from Microsoft."

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpslicense.mspx

"However, the Ministry of Economic Development says the third-stage review has already been completed and software patentability stands. "The Bill incorporates the outcomes of all three stages of the review. The issue of software patents was considered as part of the third stage, but a decision was taken not to exclude software from patentability," says an MED spokeswoman. Harrison suggests that accepting software patents, even tacitly, represents a capitulation to the view of United States authorities, and abandons a potentially powerful weapon in negotiations towards a New Zealand-US free trade agreement. Similar points have been made on the copyright and music-piracy fronts."

Source: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/devt/84239C76EEE24D1BCC2575DC006BFFC1

"The possibility of getting a tech-friendly name to head the USPTO is likely to be good news for many in the IT sector, which is rife with complaints about the current U.S. patent system. For one thing, IT patent cases have been on a sharp rise over the past few years, with a growing number of cases brought by "non-practicing entities," or "patent trolls" as they're often called by critics."

Source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3826106/IBM-Exec-Selected-to-Head-Patent-Office.htm

"David Garrod, who left Goodwin Procter in 2008 to found a company called Bedrock Computer Technologies, believes in the value of intellectual property. He has to: Bedrock is an East Texas-based patent enforcement company that, as Joe Mullin reports this week at IP Law & Business, just filed an infringement suit against seven big Internet companies, including Google, Amazon, and MySpace. Garrod's using the folks from McKool Smith - well-known for bold representation of IP plaintiffs - to prosecute Bedrock's case."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202431608878&Patent_Litigation_Weekly_Former_Goodwin_Procter_Partner_Now_Patent_EnforcerExcept_in_False_Markings_Public_Interest_Cases

"Software patents are not currently available in New Zealand, although several companies have tried to get “by the back door”, i.e. by tying the software idea they want to patent to some piece of hardware. A software patent is a state-enforced monopoly on a idea. They exist in the US and some other countries, but not in many places including New Zealand. We don’t need or want them here."

Source: http://it.gen.nz/2009/06/19/software-patents-unwelcome-and-unwanted/

"Claim: (Ex Parte Borenstein) A method for providing catalog information for presentation to a user of a store in an electronic commerce system, comprising the steps of… BPAI: while the storage of information in independent claim 1 could arguably be done as a mental process, the recitation of a structured relationship between multiple stores that requires “path information” inherently implies that this information must be stored on a computer or database. This “particular” computer or database is sufficient structure to meet the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test of In re Bilski. As independent claim 15 recites a computer program product, it is not a method claim that must be analyzed under In re Bilski."

Source: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bilski-at-bpai-what-mess-part-1.html

"Allies of the free Codec did not leave this provocative statement uncontested for long: Greg Maxwell from Xiph published a comparison between H.263/H.264 and the current Theora version on his homepage. He came to the conclusion that Theora’s smaller bitrate clearly cuts better than the currently used on Youtube H.263 Codec and the patent protected H.264 Codec. Maxwell also received support from Mozilla developers and Wikimedia fans. David Gerard emphasized that the MPEG LA would begin to charge license fees for streaming with H.264. For this reason, many fear Codec will not indefinitely possess the capability of being used easily anymore. A crucial point on possible alternatives to Theora was brought up by free consultant Silvia Pfeiffer and explained that the danger of a submarine patent in Theora is very low."

Source: http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/online/news/google_considerations_ogg_theora_or_h_264

"It’s not just about the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The proposed alternative to pharmaceutical patents starts from the fact that the big pharmaceutical companies officially admit they only spend 15% of their revenues on research, to suggest that the governments could take 20% of what they currently spend on drugs (which is a lot of money!) and allocate it to pharmaceutical research, with the results free to anyone. However, the Pirate Party is the only political party to have asserted that all kind of patents have to be abolished, not only the pharmaceutical patents and the software patents!"

Source: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/2009/06/10/a-unique-person-with-common-sense-in-the-ep/

"The next time that the European Parliament sits, its members will include Christian Engstrom, an entrepreneur turned activist who has been an anti-patent lobbyist for the past five years. If the Pirates receive a second seat, Engstrom will be joined by Amelia Andersdotter, whom Falkvinge describes as "one of the brightest minds we have in the Pirate Party." She will also be the youngest member ever elected to the European Parliament if she sits."

Source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3825206_3/Interview-with-Pirate-Party-Leader-These-are-Crucial-Freedoms.htm

"The New Zealand government has proposed allowing unlimited software patenting. They are accepting comments until July 2nd, but participation from the people who will be harmed seems very low. The details of how to participate can be found on swpat.org: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand Participation of the free software community is particularly important because, although SME federations and consumer rights groups are sometimes the most influential lobbies against software patents, it's often the free software community that raises awareness of the issue and gets these other groups moving. The July 2nd deadline is very close, so work is needed now."

Source: http://coffee.geek.nz/node/23026

"Patent Trolls are an ever-growing threat to global innovation. These IP aggregators purchase low-quality patents and use them as leverage to hijack potential revenue and profits from hardware and software companies, our largest economic driver. This causes entrepreneurs to reconsider launching companies, while CEOs devote more of their time and resources to managing intellectual property. New online and offline tools and services are becoming available to combat Patent Trolls and enable technology companies to focus on their core business."

Source: http://www.linuxtag.org/2009/en/program/freies-vortragsprogramm/wednesday/details.html?talkid=582

"OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome in the next release of Debian (codenamed Squeeze). While that may seem like nothing big (except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package), Tomboy requires Mono — meaning that Mono will now be installed by default. Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms that Red Hat does. Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did."

Source: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/1251228/Mono-Squeezed-Into-Debian-Default-Installation

"Now you have the option to acquire Xandros Desktop offerings together with Microsoft patent assurance. This assurance enables you to use Xandros Desktop software with confidence. This program is available for $50. Learn more by reading Microsoft's covenant. Would you like to purchase patent protection for your Xandros Desktop? Yes, please tell me more No, just continue with my Xandros Desktop purchase"

Source: http://www.xandros.com/products/ip_assurance_na.html

"“Now you have the option to acquire Xandros Desktop offerings together with Microsoft patent assurance. This assurance enables you to use Xandros Desktop software with confidence. This program is available for $50. Learn more by reading Microsoft’s covenant.” “How much does the same thing cost for SLED?” This even links to Microsoft’s Web site. Nice, eh? What a pleasant experience purchasing GNU/Linux from Xandros. This also applies to Linspire, which Xandros bought. They sell Debian with a Microsoft licence for imaginary software patents."

Source: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/15/xandros-patent-protection-sale/

The patent system is getting quite stressed with globalism, a long tail of users and oceans of abstract patents. This means that a patent might hit you faster than you can say opposition. The WTO, EU, US and JP are teaming to fight work loads and raise quality at the same time.

Here are three suggestions on how to fix some more immediate problems:

• A much longer opposition time, since patents are getting harder to categorize and searching is futile to protect your business. Rise the cost of continuations to cover what would otherwise be stopping innovation. The world is no longer just a dozen players that you can track.
  
• Translate patent grants into private insurances and share the pain of loosing a patent in appeals with your favorite patent office. Patents would of course still have to be registered with governments and courts after being approved from private insurance granting firms.
  
• Registries must be public and on-line. It's really hard to understand why it's still impossible to search granted patents on the EPO:s search service espacenet.com. We also need better collaboration in finding prior art, so that we do not have to repeat the work of researching against dubious patents over and over again.

This is just a patch.
We also need to take care legislation and get innovation policy working in order to separate good from bad patents. Thats why Bilski and UPLS/EU-EPLA matters.

/jonas

* See FFII on private insurances.

"Wondering if the questions the EU Council of Ministers want to ask the ECJ about the unified patent litigation system have been made public"

Source: http://twitter.com/Ipkat/statuses/2129881556

"The bottom line is that, after a plaintiff-patentee has had a reasonable opportunity to review the source code for the defendant’s accused software product, the patentee’s time for trolling the proverbial waters for a theory of infringement comes to an end, and the patentee must fish or cut bait with respect to its specific theory of infringement by providing PICs to the defendant that clearly identify and explain how the source code for the accused product infringes upon specific claims for the patent-in-suit. For DSC, trolling time is over."

Source: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2009/06/distric-court-warns-that-patentees-time.html

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal concerning the standards used to determine whether a process is eligible for patent protection under 35 USC § 101. Bilski v. Doll, U.S., No. 08-964, 2009 WL 221232 (June 1, 2009) (granting certiorari). Last fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a process is patent-eligible under § 101 if: "(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 943, 954 (2008). The Supreme Court's review of this case will play an important role in defining whether business methods and other computer-implemented processes may be patented. It is difficult to predict whether the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Bilski signals an intent to significantly narrow or expand the scope of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101…"

Source: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81040

"The European Patent Office (EPO) does not grant patents for computer programs ("software patents") or computer-implemented business methods that make no such technical contribution. In this respect the granting practice of the EPO differs significantly from that of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [IPKat comment: Although, after Bilski, it appears that the USPTO is now even more strict than the EPO]"

Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/06/e-learning-on-software-patents-at-epo.html

"One of the fears that I and others have voiced is that the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) - an attempt to set up a unified European judicial system for patent litigation - might be an attempt to get software patents in through back door. Often, though, these concerns are dismissed by supporters of software patents as unwarranted."

Source: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/06/different-point-of-view-on-software.html

"Bilski's importance has stemmed from its apparent clash with previous caselaw – particularly the example of State Street Bank v Signature Financial Group, Inc (1998), in which the Federal Circuit upheld the patentability of a financial model. Finding that Signature's means of moving funds achieved a ‘useful, concrete and tangible result', the Federal ruling drew on a central Supreme Court tenet that ‘anything under the sun made by man' was patentable. Unlike the European Patent Convention (EPC), the US does not automatically exclude business method patents. For the US IP industry, unease over Bilski has reached a critical stage, as holders of patents spawned by State Street grow concerned for their rights."

Source: http://www.cpaglobal.com/ip-review-online/3369/supreme_test_for_bilski

"It is important that the Bilski judgment be understood correctly, and not misinterpreted as meaning the end of software patents in the US. However, there is a lack of clarity as to which kinds of patent claim will satisfy the Bilski test, and it is therefore good news that the US Supreme Court has agreed, on 1 June 2009, to hear arguments in Bilski v Doll to review the Federal Circuit decision. The Supreme Court will deal with two questions: firstly, does the Federal Circuit's decision conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v Diehr where the court held that the only non-patentable subject matter is “laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas”; and secondly, does the “machine-or-transformation” test conflict with the US Congress's intent that business methods are patentable?"

Source: http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/industryinsight/software/devilliers090610.asp?S=Software&A=SFT&O=FPII

"The European Union has moved to address a decisive issue key to the creation of the hotly-contested European community patent. At the end of May, European Industry Ministers agreed to ask the European Court of Justice (EJC) whether draft plans to cut the costs of defending patents in a single European patent court would be compatible with EU law. Because the European Patent Office also grants patents that are valid in non-EU member states – such as Norway and Switzerland – the topic is under debate."

Source: http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=10167&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=640e1d5cc6

"However, it seems that Google doesn't care much for having a free and open video format. Most of the bits you put out on the web are in patent-encumbered formats, and this doesn't seem to bother you. Rather, you promote patent-encumbered formats in your new experimental service [4]. The web is based on free and open formats. Google would not have existed without the web. It will be a terrible tragedy if you tip the scales in favor of patent-encumbered formats on the web. We expect higher standards from you."

Source: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020254.html

"This shouldn't become a political discussion, because otherwise it's not possible to distinguish where is the truth. The following things are needed: - startup benchmarks - warm performance benchmarks - gtk-sharp benchmarks about the gui - memory benchmarks - some lawyers opinions about patents - direct contact to microsoft lawyers to ask them if mono is infringing anything"

Source: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono/+bug/383182

"As a result, to be intellectually consistent, those people against software patents also have to be against patents for electronic circuits. Unless the Supreme Court is going to hold that electronic circuits are not statutory material for patents under 35 USC § 101, their decision should not affect software patents."

Source: http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/08/bilski-software-patents-and-business-method-patents/

In its edition of IP Value 2007, the Intellectual Asset Magazine (IAM) was publishing an article about the Reform of European Patent System, where an expert (Alison Crofts from Dorsey & Whitney) mentions that the push for the EPLA is coming from the pro-software patents lobby:

The industry-based driving force behind the EPLA comes from the pro-software patent group as a way to ensuring that their software or potential software patents are fully enforceable across Europe.

"In its edition of IP Value 2007, the Intellectual Asset Magazine (IAM) was publishing an article about the Reform of European Patent System, where an expert (Alison Crofts from Dorsey & Whitney) mentions that the push for the EPLA is coming from the pro-software patents lobby: "The industry-based driving force behind the EPLA comes from the pro-software patent group as a way to ensuring that their software or potential software patents are fully enforceable across Europe." "

Source: http://epla.ffii.org/forum/t-161586/patent-expert-alison-crofts-says-epla-is-pushed-by-pro-software-patents-lobby

"The EPO continues walking down the wrong path. A new brochure titled “Patents for software?” has just been release by the EPO. Software patents are not legitimate in the EU. So why even produce such a brochure with a question mark as an excuse? As the president of FFII puts it, “EPO teaches software programmers they have to read and understand 60.000 patents before writing code.” If people don’t stand up and oppose software patents, they too will likely pass. Microsoft pays lobbyists a lot of money to accomplish this goal by corrupting politicians."

Source: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/epo-publishes-swpats-info/

"Hackers from all over Europe will meet at the end of the month (27-30 June) at the second Hacker Space Festival (HSF), in Paris. The four-day schedule includes conferences and workshops on: Metasploit, HostileWRT, FPGA for beginners, ICT disaster recovery, Software Patents in Europe, Hadopi, Anonymisation or how to produce your own biodiesel… The future of Hacker Spaces will also be debated. The event will be hosted by the first french hackerspace /tmp/lab, located in an industrial zone in the outskirts of Paris."

Source: http://slashdot.org/submission/1016075/Paris-hosts-the-second-Hacker-Space-Festival

"Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries)."

Source: http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

"Then i realized, i was an artist, and all the articles on ars, /., techdirt and here reminded me of patent trolls, copyright propoganda, ad nauseum. so, if i patent the ‘idea’, which im sure is easy as fuck to do, then i can lock out innovation entirely, and everyone would be at my whim when i felt like upgrading my software. for the price i demanded, gee, that sounded all too familiar… even if I DIDNT, someone else could, and then force mine off the market.., if only for protecting my right to offer a better software package for a reasonable fee i HAVE to patent it. thats fucked up when a system is so screwed, you HAVE to play their way, or not be allowed into the game at all. it really hits home hard when the realizations of how fucked up the patent and copyright system is in its current state, lemme tell ya."

Source: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/22836

"CIP FORUM 2009 is now confirmed for Sept 6-9, in Göteborg. The theme will be "The Future of Innovation" and focus on how modern innovation processes in the knowledge economy are built upon the management of intellectual assets, property, and capital. Marshall Phelps, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft will be the
Chairman of the event. Over 600 persons from around the world are planned to attend."

Source: http://www.cipforum.org/

"Conference Date: 11 Sep 2009 Conference Ref: H9-5209 Fee: £575 + VAT Venue: The Rembrandt Hotel, London Register for this one day seminar to: Hear about the major recent developments in European patent law in the areas of software-related and business-related patents Exploit the differences between the US and Europe on the scope of protection available for your patent Hear about the impact of the Federal Circuit's Bilski decision Improve your claim drafting by utilising what you have learned Compare experiences with fellow delegates from across Europe Seminar Leaders: Alexander Clelland - EPO Boards of Appeal Ian Harris - D Young & Co Timothy May - Finnegan Topics to be covered at this seminar: Recent developments in Europe for Computer related inventions Strategies for the U.S. in the wake of the decisions in Bilski (subject matter patentability) and KSR (obviousness) Global drafting and prosecution tactics for these technologies Workshop – Questions, answers and discussion of examples"

Source: http://www.management-forum.co.uk/ip/eventid/1121

"Yet the panel delivered very strong language rejecting the mere possibility of business method patents under Canadian law. The panel noted that "since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."
In applying that analysis to the Amazon.com one-click patent, the panel concluded that "concepts or rules for the more efficient conduct of online ordering, are methods of doing business. Even if these concepts or rules are novel, ingenious and useful, they are still unpatentable because they are business methods." "

Source: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4034/135/

"The problem is that all software ultimately reduces to mathematical operations, yet only some software controls actual stuff, like the baking of rubber. If the rest is merely math and therefore unpatentable, does that mean we must deny patents to all software that runs nothing but itself? Back in the 1990s, courts were uncomfortable going that far. Computers were infiltrating more and more traditional bastions of patent protection—consumer products, telecommunications, medical devices, automobiles—and computer software itself had become a distinct technology industry. It seemed wrong to read Diamond v. Diehr so broadly as to deny patent protection to new enterprises, thus leaving the rising tide of software technology outside the system—along with the dreaded business method. So the lower courts found themselves caught between the Supreme Court’s antipathy toward excessively mathematical inventions and the proliferating reality of computer software. Searching for a single principle that would exclude equations from patentability without crippling innovation, the courts experimented unsuccessfully with one patentability test after another."

Source: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-death-of-businessmethod-patents

"Microsoft and Paltalk, which owns patents for video chat technology, settled in March a lawsuit in which Paltalk accused Microsoft of infringing on two patents. New York-based Paltalk alleged Microsoft illegally used the technology in its "Halo 2" and "Halo 3" Xbox games, among others. The two companies settled for an undisclosed amount of money after the case went to trial, allowing Microsoft to continue using the technology, according to a Paltalk news release. Paltalk's technology allows Xbox players to talk to each other over an Internet connection."

Source: http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EkuukVVAZAaWQwuDMe.php

"IP Law & Business laments that when the Federal Circuit issued the landmark Bilski decision, some folks were ready to call it the death of (most) business method patents, or even software patents—that view may be a bit premature. Even if Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor joins the court and turn out to be strongly pro-patent, those hoping for stronger limits on what can be patented, there are still a number of way to find a majority. Several justices have, in other cases, dropped hints about what’s in their minds on this subject."

Source: http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/06/05/friday-ip-round-up-baby-bomb-edition/

"And, in fact, it's often smaller, more innovative companies that are the most harmed by patents. Joe Mullin has a great post looking at how small mom-and-pop photo sharing sites are being hit with a bunch of patent infringement lawsuits. Basically, a few different companies are all claiming that they own patents on the ideas behind photo hosting online. But, of course, since the idea is so obvious, there are a lot of photo hosting sites out there, including many run as small businesses. […] Even though, I would be very happy is all software and business model patents, at a minimum, were done away with. I have no doubt that the net effect of such patents on society, and most little guys, has been very negative."

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090601/0007575076.shtml

"There is an anti-IP zeitgeist in Europe that has been around for a number of years. It manifests itself in many ways, but can be seen clearly in issues such as the patentability of computer implemented inventions and biotechnology, access to medicine and green technology, copyrights on the internet and ACTA. There is a debate to be had about the extent to which IP rights should or should not be granted in Europe, but right now that debate is very one sided becasue no-one is making the case for IP. Even the Commission has an extremely split stance on the matter. Some DGs tell us how important it is for Europe to create and protect IP, while the Competition DG takes every opportunity it can to rein in the rights of successful IP owners."

Source: http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=abe34824-b73c-4277-98d8-0142aa2109db

"The Pirate Party of Sweden has been a big winner in the election of a new European parliament. Defending online privacy rights, taking a stand against software patents and opposing too strickt copyright laws have been the main planks of the Pirate Party platform."

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/8/739985/-Pirates-win-election-in-Sweden

"I think this is a wonderful development for protecting open source developers from patents, and I would like to see it replicated in all standards bodies. The only issue will be whether OASIS TCs choose to adopt this mode; we need to demand it and boycott the TCs that don't."

Source: http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/oasis_protects_open_source_developers