Planet FFII

FFII EU Patent News: EU Prize for Patent Troll of the Year?

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Each year the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Commission celebrate the "European Inventor of the Year" Award. The EPO has published a number of video interviews with nominees, among them Peter Landrock, a pioneer in broad e-commerce patents and their application to infringment litigation in Europe.

FFII EU Patent News: EU asked China to enforce patents against open standards

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000

The first meeting of the EU-China IP Working Group took place in Beijing on 18 October 2005. Mr. Luc Devigne headed the European side, which raised concerns about exemptions in the Chinese law that prevent European patent holders from individually collecting royalties for open standards. The revised Chinese patent law of 2009 contains more such exemptions.

FFII EU Patent News: Jim Bessen: Do Patents Work as Property?

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Jim Bessen and colleagues found by statistical analysis that innovators are nowadays, unlike 20 years ago, losing more money by patent litigation than they are gaining from patent royalties. Bessen correlates these findings to changes in patent law which made the boundaries of patents more fuzzy.

Software Patent News: Apple Starts ‘Nuclear War’ in Patent Fight With HTC

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:53:48 +0000

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/apple-starts-nuclear-war-in-patent-fight-with-htc-update2-.html

The complete documents for the suit are available here:
http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-20-iphone-patents?skyline=true&s=i

Jonas Bosson comments in his blog on this topic:
http://bosson.blogspot.com/2010/03/apple-makes-war-with-silly-broad.html

Jonas Bosson: Apple makes war with silly broad patents.

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:10:44 +0000

No Mr Jobs, Those patents require no innovation.

Most software and Internet firms have pledged not to sue unless someone first sues them. Sun, Google, Oracle, Cisco and many more think that patents would have an ugly effect on the market otherwise. Apple appears to have left that defensive ideal by waging patent war with Android using HTC as its proxy.

By threatening companies that deliver with Android software - they probably hope scare them off. Perhaps like when Microsoft sued Tom Tom or used SCO to ram Linux. Apple uses 20 patents that are terribly week to any person skilled in software, but as with many patents take their toll on common sense in litigation.

Engadget has the full list of Apple patents in this suit and they represent the sorry standard for what is patentable today. This has little to do with innovation, but rather by pushing overly broad claims on what is possible trough a patenting office unfit to manage or deal with abstract matters such as software.

This is yet another reason, after EOLAs return, why we need to scrap software patents to save innovation.

Shame on Apple.
/Jonas Bosson

Software Patent News: The Prior Art: Inside Google's first patent trial

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:00:15 +0000

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/02/patent-litigation-weekly-inside-googles-first-patent-trial.html#more

Digital Majority: Alvaro asks 9 questions to the Commission about ACTA, including 3 strikes and transparency

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:11:21 +0000

Alexander Alvaro (Member of the European Parliament, ALDE, Germany) has asked 9 questions about ACTA, notably about the access by the INTA committee to the drafts documents. He is also asking about changes to substantive patent law (read software patents here):

Parliamentary questions
22 January 2010
E-0147/10
WRITTEN QUESTION by Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) to the Commission

Subject: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

1. It was reported that 38 different nations have participated in discussions about the text of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Why should that text be withheld from the public?

2. If there is consensus to make the proposed ACTA public, how promptly can it be made public? And had the Chairperson and Coordinators of the responsible INTA committee full access to the documents?

3. Can an approximate timeline for the negotiation of the proposed ACTA be given?

4. Will the proposed ACTA address issues other than counterfeiting? If so, why?

5. Will the proposed ACTA make changes to substantive intellectual property law, or will it be limited to harmonising enforcement measures? If the former, why?

6. If the proposed ACTA make changes to substantive intellectual property law, why is this initiative being discussed in secret, instead of at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)?

7. Will the proposed ACTA impose obligations with respect to the Internet, and if so, why?

8. Some commentators have claimed that the proposed agreement requires a so-called ‘Three Strikes’ approach, whereby Internet services or Internet access providers must terminate the access of Internet users accused of having violated copyright law. Can it be stated authoritatively that the agreement will not require or recommend a ‘Three Strikes’ requirement being implemented by Internet services and/or Internet access providers?

9. Certain US officials have claimed that the agreement will impose no new obligations upon the United States Government. Is it the case that the US Government would undertake no responsibilities as a result of this instrument, and if so, what benefit would accrue to the Commission by entering into such an agreement with the United States of America?

Digital Majority: Members of European Parliaments ask when they will receive the ACTA documents

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:05:53 +0000

Some Member of the European Parliament are asking the Commission and the Council when they plan to respect the Lisbon Treaty on ACTA, where the next Trade Commissioner Karel DeGucht said in a hearing that the Lisbon Treaty does not apply to the ACTA negotiations, because the confidentiality rules were negotiated before the entry into force of the Treaty.

Here is the full text of the question, Mr Josefsson is publishing it in a proprietary Microsoft Word format (which is used by EU bureaucrats) on his website, but not in a plain text or html, so here it is:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
FORM FOR TABLING PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
To the: COUNCIL , COMMISSION

ORAL QUESTIONS

Oral Question with debate (Rule 115)

Question Time (Rule 116)

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Written Question (Rule 117)

Priority Written Question (Rule 117 (4))

AUTHOR(S): Carl SCHLYTER, Eva LICHTENBERGER, Christian ENGSTRÖM, Niccolò RINALDI, Daniel CASPARY, Syed KAMALL, David MARTIN, Helmut SCHOLZ, Bernd LANGE, Robert STURDY

SUBJECT: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

TEXT:

The plurilateral negotiations on an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are being conducted under a premise of confidentiality agreed upon by participants on a request by the US Government.

At a hearing on 12 January 2010, Commissioner-designate Karel De Gucht said that he will respect the confidentiality agreement among ACTA participants.

In preliminary discussions with Parliament on a new Inter-Institutional Framework Agreement, the Commission agreed on 27 January that it is committed to a reinforced association with Parliament through immediate and full information of the Parliament at every stage of negotiations on international agreements (including the definition of the negotiation directives), in particular on trade matters and other negotiations involving the consent procedure, to give full effect to Article 218 TFEU of Parliament, while respecting each institution's role and safe compliance with new procedures and rules for the respect of the necessary confidentiality.

- How will the Commission honour its commitment to a reinforced association with Parliament with regard to the ACTA negotiations?

- When will the Commission grant Parliament access to all documents relating to ACTA, in particular the ACTA negotiation mandate by the Council, the minutes of ACTA negotiation meetings, the draft chapters of ACTA, and the comments of ACTA participants on the draft chapters?

- Given that the Spanish EU Presidency aspires to an ACTA agreement within the first half of 2010, and given that many Parliamentarians see ACTA as an early example of EP's new role under the Lisbon TFEU, would Commission think that full access to ACTA documents should be given to Parliament prior to the coming into effect of the new Framework Agreement?

Signature(s): Date: 03.02.2010

EN

Let's see if the European Parliament have to go to the ECJ to get the documents, and test the Lisbon Treaty, but there is a high chance that the Commission and the Council will say that the Lisbon Treaty does not apply here, or they won't give full transcripts of the meetings, neither access to the documents.

Software Patent News: Economist: An end to frivolous patents may finally be in sight

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:09:06 +0000

"For society, however, the loss of competition through the granting sole rights to an individual or organisation is justified only if it stimulates the economy and delivers goods that change people’s lives for the better. […] Instead of stimulating innovation, such [business method] patents seem more about extracting “rents” from innocent bystanders going about their business. […] If truth be told, few inventions are really worth patenting. Time and again, surveys show that in both America and Europe companies rate superior sales and service, lead time and secrecy as far more important than patents when it comes to profiting from innovation. […] Pursuing patents aggressively for cross-licensing agreements has little to do with encouraging innovation, though. Indeed, by increasing transaction costs, such deals are in effect a tax on innovation. By the same token, how much of a contribution have the 12,000 or so business processes patented annually in America (but few places elsewhere) made to innovation? Precious little, by all accounts. It is hard enough to find evidence (outside the pharmaceutical and biotech industries) showing that the patent system generally spurs innovation. It is harder still to find justification for business-process patents."

Source: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15479680

Software Patent News: SD Times: USPTO likely to adopt 'peer-to-patent'

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:40:22 +0000

"Kappos said that the project “got a good level of interest. It got positive responses from examiners and the public. [The project's participants] found significant prior art, especially in non-patent literature. That's important in software, where so often it's not patented prior art. Our mission as an agency is to get the best prior art in front of examiners. There clearly is value [in the project]." "

Source: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/34113

NoOOXML News: Samba guru Jeremy Allison reflects on Open XML standardisation

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:45:21 +0000

Jeremy Allison at LCA2010

"One of the worst things that happened out of that, [is that the ISO] which was previously respected by people that didn't know it so well, became absolutely despised," he said. "There are some countries now thinking of pulling out [of ISO] because it is simply not worth participating in a process that is so obviously corrupted."

Jonas Bosson: IPWatchdog thinks those "not interested in software patents are not innovators"

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:33:23 +0000

I have long kept an eye on IPWatchdog, a popular patents law blog authored by Gene Quinn, a patent attorney in the US. I have valued his reports for some time even though we have quite different ideas about what should be patentable. But sadly now, in the wake of the Supreme Court Bilski case, it seems he has gone over the edge with blatant statements like:

"Those in the software industry who are not interested in software patents are not innovators, they are copiers. They steal the work of others. " in The Fundamental Unfairness of Retroactively Applying Bilski

I think this started when Mr Quinn totally flipped in his comments in this previous post where Ian Clark, a highly regarded software engineer and entrepreneur took issue with the attorneys ideas.

However blatant, this kind of proves him wrong on so many levels it also gives me good hope for reforms in the patent area in 2010! Innovation is not just about patents Mr. Quinn and certainly proven so in the software field.

/jonas

NoOOXML News: EU settlement: ECMA 376 not ISO 29500

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:47:21 +0000

16 Dec 2009; Microsoft Statement on European Commission Decision

(17) Office Open XML. The “.docx, .xlsx and .pptx” file formats used in the Office 2007 version of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications shall implement the ECMA 376 Specification. This commitment shall apply to successor versions of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications with respect to IS 29500. This means that Microsoft shall support the relevant standard and provide a warranty as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010.

(18) Microsoft shall publicly document Additional Information for the ECMA 376 Specification that meets the requirements of paragraph (15) above. This commitment shall apply to successor versions of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications with respect to IS 29500. Microsoft shall provide a warranty as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010.

So Paragraph 15 seems interesting:

(15) This paragraph describes how Microsoft shall implement paragraphs (16) to (18) and Section 2.2. Microsoft shall make Interoperability Information available to interested undertakings relative to file formats used by Microsoft Office Word, PowerPoint and Excel that allows third-party Software Products to open, manipulate, save, exchange and share documents created by Microsoft’s PC Productivity Applications without a loss of container structure information or any instructions in the file that describe the document's formatting characteristics. For these purposes, file formats are understood as containers to hold data created by users of those Microsoft’s PC Productivity Applications and information describing associated properties of that data, and the Interoperability Information in the foregoing sentence does not include information about the functionality of these applications or the underlying operating systems that could be used to clone or port Microsoft products in whole or in part.

Now the patent pledge for open source… developers!

Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you as an open source software developer ("You") for making, using, importing, or distributing any implementation of the Technical Documentation ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to You, and You acknowledge it is a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise by any other person in connection with this promise. To benefit from this promise, you must be a natural or legal person participating in the creation of software code for an open source project. An "open source project" is a software development project the resulting source code of which is freely distributed, modified, or copied pursuant to an open source license and is not commercially distributed by its participants. If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities.
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the Technical Documentation. … Where a software development project has in all other respects the characteristics of an open source project, distribution among the participants of that project of source code developed by natural persons under an employment contract or by natural or legal persons under a contract to develop is not considered to be commercial distribution, and that software development project does not lose its character as an open source project merely because such distribution takes place among participants. Software is deemed to be commercially distributed within the meaning of this promise when the distributor derives revenues in connection with the distribution, such as from subscriptions, updates, or user-based connection fees or from services that are contractually required for a customer to obtain the current version and/or updates of the software product in question.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of the Microsoft-issued patent claims cover a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe on patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

I wonder how much fun Brad Smith and his colleagues had with this…

NoOOXML News: ANSI: international standards system is working well

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:10:08 +0000

ANSI/S. Joe Bhatia responds to Congressman Gordon

Unlike the standards development systems of many other countries, the U.S. system systematically considers the views of all interested parties in a balanced way, leading to some of the most robust standards in the world. And the openness of our national standards system to new participants means that their needs can be met quickly and through innovative, collaborative solutions.

Question 3 With the globalization of technology development and business, is it time to assess an international standards system developed 50 years ago?
ANSI believes that the current international standards system is working well. It would be helpful to have an opportunity to better understand any concerns that you may have about the system so that we may work to address them. A meeting request letter has been sent under separate cover so that we may pursue this discussion.

As a founding member of ISO and a participant in the IEC for over a century, the U.S. enjoys a position of significant leadership within these organizations. Americans have served and continue to serve as officers and as influential members of all ISO and IEC governance bodies. We work very hard to garner broad support for the suggested improvements we put forward, and have developed strong relationships with many of our global partners within the international standardization community. As a result, we have been very successful in suggesting increased coordination and multiple process changes to the global system that benefit U.S. stakeholders.

And when U.S. constituents were concerned about new ISO and IEC standards that could been seen to usurp governmental authority, ANSI led the development of a set of principles to ensure that ISO and IEC standards provide solid tools to support the implementation – not set the direction – of public policies.

Software Patent News: Kalow and Springut: Patentable Subject Matter After 'Bilski'

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:03:03 +0000

"The machine or transformation test is the current analysis that the courts and the Patent Office will take when considering whether subject matter is patentable. As both Bilski and Prometheus show, this question is not industry specific, but it is particularly important when an inventor is trying to obtain patent rights directed to processes. Because of the changing landscape, and the likelihood that whatever the Supreme Court does, there will remain unanswered questions about where the boundaries lie, the patent practitioner should always consider trying to claim processes both broadly and as tied to devices and/or causes one or more transformations."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202435413110&Patentable_Subject_Matter_After_Bilski

Software Patent News: The H: New Microsoft patent may put Linux security components at risk

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:51:38 +0000

"Microsoft has been granted a patent on a privilege escalation system which appears to cover the functionality of PolicyKit, which is used for fine grain authorisation on Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and other Linux systems."

Source: http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-Microsoft-patent-may-put-Linux-security-components-at-risk-857848.html

Software Patent News: Groklaw: Microsoft Patents Sudo?!!

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:45:00 +0000

"It appears that Microsoft has just patented sudo, a personalized version of it. Here it is, patent number7617530. Thanks, USPTO, for giving Microsoft, which is already a monopoly, a monopoly on something that's been in use since 1980 and wasn't invented by Microsoft."

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390

Software Patent News: Ciaran O'Riordan: Bilski’s hearing and software patents

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:09:48 +0000

"At Monday’s hearing, 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."

Source: http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/

Software Patent News: Minutes of the Bilski Hearing

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:08:55 +0000

"Official transcript of the hearing Bilski vs. Kappos before the US Supreme Court, Nov 9 2009."

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf

Software Patent News: IPWatchdog: Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:23:01 +0000

"At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that the Supreme Court did their homework."

Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/

Software Patent News: IPWatchdog: Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:20:17 +0000

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/

Software Patent News: Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:50 +0000

"The last two decades have seen an extraordinary growth in the number of patent applications for business technologies and methods. Critics of business method patents tend to assign responsibility for this development to judicial activism by the judges of the Federal Circuit especially those responsible for the decision in State Street […] The judicial activism thesis may have a superficial appeal. […] Yet the judicial activism thesis suffers from multiple glaring problems and plainly cannot account for the timing of the rise in business method patenting, which plainly began well before State Street."

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/business-method-patents-technological-change-not-judicial-activism.html

Software Patent News: USA Today: Software patent case arrives at Supreme Court

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:18:52 +0000

"With the tech industry looking on, the Supreme Court today will explore what types of inventions should be eligible for a patent in a pivotal case that could undermine such legal protections for software. A ruling that sides with the Patent Office could bar patents on processes and methods of doing business, such as online shopping techniques, medical diagnostic tests and procedures for executing trades on Wall Street. And it might even undercut patents on software."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-11-09-patents09_ST_N.htm

Software Patent News: Rob Tiller (Red Hat): Patent law must not stifle innovation

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:18:03 +0000

"In a world of constantly accelerating technological change, economic prosperity depends on innovation. To support such innovation, it is vital that our patent system be well-calibrated, so that overly broad patent monopolies do not choke innovation. In the last several years, patent standards have been relaxed by the courts, which has created a patent system that hinders innovation in the software industry. The Supreme Court now is considering a case, Bilski v. Kappos, that may address this critical problem."

Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/178809.html

Software Patent News: High Court Must Lower Bar For Patents

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:16:27 +0000

"In upholding a lower court ruling, the federal circuit wrote that a business process (like online banking) must be ‘tied to a machine’ or transform ‘a substance into a different state or thing’ in order to qualify for patent protection. This ‘machine or transformation’ test, as it is called, is too rigid to incite innovation.
If the circuit court ruling is upheld, it could have a negative effect on Connecticut technology companies where the ability to patent innovations in business systems is critical to be competitive and maintain customers."

Source: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-chaclas-pitney-patent.artoct30,0,5438710.story

Software Patent News: Eben Moglen: An Important Patent Law Precedent Approaches

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:14:54 +0000

"The SFLC and I recently filed a brief in Bilski v. Kappos, along with plenty of other lawyers, and I gave a talk about the case, and the future of patent law, this morning at Cardozo Law School. The outpouring of amicus briefs in this case, which will be heard by the Court on November 9, must be particularly noticeable to the Justices and their law clerks: a stack of dozens of third-party briefs seeking attention would have been the lunchtime talk of that inner core of the Court back when I worked there, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed. A high stack of amicus briefs […] means people outside the Supreme Court think the case is important. Bilski is very important indeed."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-moglen/an-important-patent-law-p_b_342962.html

Software Patent News: A Math Geek's Ride to the High Court in Landmark Patent Fight

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:13:42 +0000

"Bernie Bilski and Rand Warsaw were just a couple of "math geeks for hire" from Pittsburgh when they applied for a patent in 1997. They had an idea for making the unpredictable predictable for utility companies: a way to make energy bills consistent, month to month, no matter what Mother Nature had in store, weatherwise. WeatherWise USA Inc. is the name of their company, in fact. What Bilski and Warsaw did not predict is that their patent application would be rejected and, on appeal, would make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court 13 years later."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435264768&A_Math_Geeks_Ride_to_the_High_Court_in_Landmark_Patent_Fight

Software Patent News: Finnegan Lawyer Challenging 'Machine or Transformation' Patent Test Says He's Ready

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:12:11 +0000

"If the Litigation Daily were prepping for our first Supreme Court argumentno snickering, pleasein a case that's considered one of the critical business controversies of the Court's term, we would be a damn sight more nervous than J. Michael Jakes of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. On Monday, Jakes is arguing Bilski v. Kappos, a closely watched IP case that will help decide whether business methods are patentable. But last Thursday afternoon, when we called him, Jakes was at his desk, sounding decidedly unfazed about his first U.S. Supreme Court argument."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202435239067

Software Patent News: Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court to decide: What kind of innovations get a patent?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:11:08 +0000

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1108/p02s13-usju.html

Software Patent News: Ciaran O'Riordan: Abandoning software patents?

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:16:06 +0000

"On Monday, November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Bilski's business method patent. Being the first review of patentable subject matter since 1981, this decision could make the rules for decades to come. The court will review the 2008 ruling of the CAFC which created the "particular machine or transformation" test. This test, depending on who's reading it, could significantly narrow the scope for patenting software ideas. The Supreme Court isn't obliged to rule on the patentability of software ideas. Bilski's patent is a business method patent, not a software patent. So why might the court make a broad ruling which would cover software? For people who are already aware of the legal arguments, I'd like to offer a review of the socio-economic arguments for abandoning software patents."

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/abandoning-software-patents.html

Software Patent News: SD Times Editors: Let’s hope for a court ruling writ large

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:02:31 +0000

"When the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the now-famous Bilski case, it should take the opportunity to level the playing field for entrepreneurs whose work has been impeded by patent trolls and broad corporate patent portfolios."

Source: http://www.sdtimes.com/FROM_THE_EDITORS_LET_S_HOPE_FOR_A_COURT_RULING_WRIT_LARGE/By_SD_TIMES_EDITORIAL_BOARD/About_PATENTS_and_JAVA_and_ORACLE/33879

Software Patent News: What has happened to the RSS feed

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:16:39 +0000

Where are all the news stories gone??? Is this site still operating?

Jonas Bosson: Software is a special purpose machine says microsoft

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:11:48 +0000

In Microsofts brief to the Supreme Court in the Bilski case, Microsoft tries to duck the nonpateneable abstracts of data processing by arguing that software configures PC into a specific machine. Groklaw member PoIR makes a good case as to why this reasoning is wrong.

The main objections are well put:

The Brief fails to mention the Turing machine in the evolution of general purpose computing
The focus is on the special purpose machine ENIAC not the general purpose machine we call PC
Modern day computing is nowhere near industrial age computers as described in the brief

Jonas Bosson: EOLAS proves the point

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:41:14 +0000

Ars Technica reports that EOLAS who sued Microsoft for almost $600M and got away with it is now suing Google, Apple and many more for using AJAX and embedding components as in the first case. I think this is just the reminder we need to send the Supreme Court that is currently deciding if software patents bear legal ground, are abstract or not and fills the purpose to promote innovation. Well, we all know the answer to that one. Here are some well written letters to the court on the subject:

FFII: s brief
RedHats brief (on groklaw)
SFLC:s brief (on groklaw)
... and other. (I think w3c should write something too .. see this EOLAS FAQ)

Patents in the lawsuit:

On the other side are some large corporations that seem to thrive from the uncertainty that these patents create, asking the court to keep software patents. More on this later...

/jonas

Jonas Bosson: "Something will need to be done"

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:31:42 +0000

The conclusions in a new paper on European patent litigation ends by citing Joff Wild's article on EPO:s attack on UK judges: "the bottom line is that something will need to be done at
some stage to clarify how European patent law should be interpreted. Whether this is
through a Community patent, a pan-European litigation system, a series of directives or a
combination of them, we cannot have the situation in which different parts of what is
supposed to be a single market either do, or have the ability to do, interpret patent law in
completely different ways. If such a situation does persist, then the entire economic
premise of the European Union is completely undermined. It seems to be that it is that
serious."

And this is where it stands. The problem is the power play that puts patent interpretation outside the reach from the EU. The work in establishing a central court outside EU moving forward.

The paper can be found here:
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2009-0901-200115/luginbuehl.pdf

I am trying to get through the paper right now. Lots of case-law and other stuff to digest. Missing stuff on UPLS though.

Digital Majority: FFII and IP Justice file Bilski Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:14:29 +0000

Washington DC, 6 October 2009 — The Foundation for a Free Informational Infrastructure (FFII) and IP Justice filed an Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case Bilski v. Kappos is expected to become a landmark ruling on the future of the U.S. patent system. The joint Brief explains the interlink of software and business methods, and points out alternatives to the so called Machine-or-Transformation test used for categorizing patents.

Bilski v. Kappos, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered the single most important decision worldwide on the issue of patents on business methods, software and algorithms since the rejection of the Software Patents Directive by the European Parliament.

"In Europe there still exists a myth of 'anything goes' as far as patentability in the US is concerned, although the Supreme Court has laid down rather strict rules on what is eligible subject matter - and what is not." says Laura Creighton, a Swedish entrepreneur.

"Software literally consists of abstract ideas", explains Dr. Peter Gerwinski from the FFII Bilski Working Group. "We have asked the Supreme Court to consider some practical realities and to formulate a test that preserves the traditional exclusion of abstract ideas from the field of patentable material."

FFII Secretary André Rebentisch highlights the transatlantic significance: "It is a delicate challenge of the U.S. Supreme Court: to find an applicable tests for patent examination of business methods. We lack a definite yardstick, a 'quadrature of the patent'. We cannot wait to see the Supreme Court's approach because it will shape the international harmonization debate."

Links

Brief of Amici Curiae (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, IP Justice, and four global software professionals and business leaders in support of respondent)

Wikipedia: Machine or Transformation Test

Contact

Benjamin Henrion
FFII Brussels Office
+32-2-414 84 03
+32-484-566109
bhenrion at ffii.org
(French/English)

About

The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) e. V. is a charitable association registered in Munich, Germany which is dedicated to the spread of data processing literacy. It funds the development of public information works based on copyright, free competition and open standards. The FFII attained broad international recognition for its phrontistery role in the European debate on a software patent directive (2002-2005) and software-related patent reform.

IP Justice is an international California-based civil liberties organization for the furthering of a balanced intellectual property law.

Digital Majority: IBM says software patents drive OSS development

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:30:25 +0000

In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that

patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code […] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.

IBM also argue that the machine-or-tranformation test allow software to be patented, and that:

software patent protection provides significant economic, technological, and societal benefits.

IBM also "finds alarming decisions in the wake of Bilski concluding that software is excluded from patentable subject matter" making references to the BPAI decisions on Ex Parte Altman. IBM also says that they are "committed to ensuring that such technology [software] is and remains patentable"."

Jonas Bosson: Obvious makes stupid

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:13:47 +0000

Michael Masnick at TechDirt has a good article on how obvious it is that the obviousness test doesn't work for patents.
There are quite a lot of good comments too, I especially like some laywers lobbying for software patents.

Just like the EPO, the USPTO has turned to old patents in order to establish un obviousness. The real clue is likely not there, its in the tacit knowledge of persons skilled in the art, just as the law states. Just because its new doesn't mean its not obvious as Michael says.

Thimothy B Lee at the Cato Institute writes a good introduction to software patents in context of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in the Bilski case. The article is filled with good references to research and court decisions.

I'll get back soon. I just recently had a son.

NoOOXML News: OOXML as a response

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:59:49 +0000

James D. Mason says:

I spent 22 years as the chairman of what is now ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34. SC34 is the committee that standardized SGML in the 1980s and now is responsible for both ODF, supported by many open-source products, and OOXML, the XML released by Microsoft in response to ODF. Neither ODF nor OOXML has anything to do with ODA/ODIF, which have been dormant since the turn of the current century but were still under development in the 1990s in a committee that was parallel to the one that became SC34.

Our past analysis: OOXML is a response. Thank you very much for the confirmation. Stronger language from Mason found in this article.

Software Patent News: BrusselsBubble: The new European Parliament: too close to business?

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:04:27 +0000

"The committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON), responsible for regulating the financial sector, will be chaired by British MEP Sharon Bowles. Bowles was previously accused of having a conflict of interests after pushing for software patents while also being partner in a law firm run by her husband representing clients with a direct interest in software patent protection. There has also been controversy over the newly-elected chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, Klaus Heiner Lehne. During the previousl administration, Lehne was one of the MEPs pushing strongly for software patents. At the same time he was a partner at Taylor Wessing, a law firm with a large patent department advising clients on patenting strategy in the software sector."

Source: http://brusselsbubble.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-european-parliament-too-close-to.html

Software Patent News: Ubuntu: Patent Policy

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:12:16 +0000

"The Ubuntu project strives to deliver a free and complete Operating System fit for general use. Over the years the topic of software patents and their impact on Open Source have been controversial in some parts of the world. This policy outlines the agreed set of standards and procedures surrounding software patents and Ubuntu."

Source: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy

NoOOXML News: Softpatent trolls OOXML and Word

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:07:56 +0000

The Seattle PI reports about a tragic patent ruling in the United States.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement. …Judge Leonard Davis.. ordered a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.

i4i? Ah, the world famous inventor of the "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other" which is so basic to our digital societies?

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Court’s contemporaneously issued memorandum opinion and order
in this case, Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following
actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more
than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing
and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any
infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future
Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
This injunction also does not apply to any of the above actions wherein any of the Infringing
and Future Word Products, upon opening an XML file, applies a custom tranform that removes all
custom XML elements.
This injunction further does not apply to Microsoft providing support or assistance to anyone
that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom
XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date this injunction takes effect.
This injunction becomes effective 60 days from the date of this order.
__________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Patent problems

We may add that while Microsoft always pays lip service to patent reform and patent quality, it effectively obstructed even moderate steps of pragmatic reform in the field of software patenting with massive lobbying investment and an ideological agenda. An ideological motivation you don't find among all the other players which have a real business. The massive lobbying also applies to colonial attitudes towards patent regimes of third nations in which the American company operates, or the European Union, our main area of operations as the FFII e.V. Ironically Microsoft itself is a favourite target of troll challenges and no one knows how much profits Marshall Phelps actually generates by selling their Microsoft FAT patents. In the spectacular case of TomTom we were told it was a very small amount. Some American critics as Brian Kahin speak of a patent bubble of low value patents but how is it going to burst? When you have a licensing business a good patent is one that hurts. Maybe the Encyclopedia Brittannica is an example, it failed commercially and now became an (unsuccesful) patent enforcement agency against actual market players.

In the recent referral G03/08 about software patentability an European Patent Office case named T 424/03 (Microsoft) was center to the debate. Find the Amicus letters here. Currently you also have a pending referral on Bilski in the US Supreme Court which is more far reaching than software. In the US many examination tests were dismantled such as the machine or transformation box test which opened the flood gates and unbalanced the system. It was reintroduced under the Bilski ruling but appealed at the supreme court. The Bilski test does not rule out software or business method patents but provides means to reduce the pressure within the examination system in later stages.

First you wreck the law, then the trolls wreck you.

Software Patents are a pain for market players of all sizes. In Europe some people from the FFII Community run a new Petition and we also prepare an international effort. The FFII, a charity under German law financed by membership fees and donations, has a lot of expertise and proposals on how to overcome the current troll problems and improve the examination and litigation system. Unfortunately learning the hard way does not guarantee a quick learning process.

What does it mean to Open XML?

Right now ISO/IEC 29500 ("OOXML") is patent encumbered and cannot be called an "open standard" according to conventional definitions and looks unusable for the public sector. Microsoft's own patents and lack of licensing clarity were a real concern, but i4i's enforcement efforts are on another level. ISO Open XML is currently in a critical situation as you can expect more enforcement attempts of i4i to follow in order to sqeeze money out of the market, in particular once Microsoft is forced to pay. On the other hand Microsoft will be forced to use all legal means to get rid of the patent. We need to keep a close eye on the upcoming developments but i4i may not prevail.

Expect the FFII, Eurolinux and many others to fight for that.

European Petition: Stopsoftwarepatents.eu
FFII Website FFII e.V. and FFII website for "Groff" text processing tools

Software Patent News: ITWorld: Baseball book spurs Microsoft patent model

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:24:37 +0000

"That price doesn't reflect the inherent value of the technology described in the patent. For low-quality patents, the price reflects the cost of defending against the patent in court. High-quality patents are different, with prices reflecting the cost of not owning it. "The tricky thing with patents is that the value of the patent depends not so much on the patent itself but the revenue that is compromised for the company against whom the patent is asserted," Gutierrez said."

Source: http://wireless.itworld.com/print/73665

NoOOXML News: Open XML is a foul apple

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:45:37 +0000

Imagine that, Apple supported Microsoft's Open XML standardisation. Last week’s Microsoft Office 2008 Service Pack 2 (SP2) release wasn't so great for Mac Office users, a giant fail. You know, when you have a multibillion office applications business who would dare to test for crossplattform compatibility of file formats before you release the service pack? No one does, and Apple users of the Mac Office were absolutely outraged about Open XML.

The recommendation from Microsoft is that users roll back to an earlier version. So here is the official workaround for Office users:

• Remove Office manually, reinstall Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac from the original installation media, and then upgrade to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update. Do not upgrade to Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Service Pack 2 (12.2.0) from Microsoft AutoUpdate.
• Use Time Machine to roll back to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update or an earlier version.
• Convert your document to .doc, .xls, or .ppt, by using Open XML Converter.

There is a more simple fix: Open file formats as ODF and more competition. Maybe you'd better try other word processors for instance Openoffice for Mac or Neooffice?

NoOOXML News: 800 pages of defect for OOXML, here it is

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:41:09 +0000

800 pages of defect for OOXML, here it is. ISO is such a transparent organisation that they are afraid of the web, and the public light of the blogosphere. Here is the leak for you [3.9MB, PDF].

If you have time to read it, there are probably nice bits in there.

NoOOXML News: ISO will meet in Redmond, dinner paid by Microsoft

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:24:17 +0000

The capture of the ISO process by the vendor is not finished. Microsoft is organising the next ISO SC34 meeting in Redmond on OOXML maintenance. The next ISO SC34 meeting, who should review more then 800 pages of defects of OOXML, will be held in Redmond, at a stone throw of Microsoft's headquarters. Remember the dinner in Korea?

Microsoft will be the "social host" of the Seattle meetings, hosting the reception and dinner, etc. They will also be organizing a Document Interoperability Initiative (DII) event to occur the day after the SC34 Plenary, at Microsoft, to announce how they intent to support Office 2010 as extensions to OOXML.

The previous DII event organised by Microsoft in Brussels was basically a meeting of the Microsoft ecosystem.

Here is the announcement of the meeting on the SC34 website:

For general questions about Westin meeting logistics, or things to do around Seattle, please contact Dave Welsh, moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd#moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd, cell phone +1 206 313 0879.

[…]

More hotel options, at different rates, are also available. For more hotel options in the immediate Bellevue area and the Seattle vicinity, please try Live.com.

[…]

Located in downtown Bellevue, just twenty minutes outside Seattle, The Westin Bellevue is situated minutes from major corporate offices including Microsoft, Nintendo of America, T-Mobile, and Expedia.

You can expect a lot of people member of the Microsoft ecosystem at the next SC34 meeting in Redmond.

NoOOXML News: New Wordprocessing Patent

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:45:43 +0000

Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML

A word processor including a native XML file format is provided. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports 100% of word-processor's rich formatting. There are no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents as XML. A published XSD file defines all the rules behind the word-processor's XML file format. Hints may be provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. The word-processing document is stored in a single XML file. Additionally, manipulation of word-processing documents may be done on computing devices that do not include the word-processor itself.

Inventors: Jones; Brian M. (Redmond, WA), Bishop; Andrew K. (Redmond, WA), Snyder; Daniel R. (Bellevue, WA), Sawicki; Marcin (Kirkland, WA), Little; Robert A. (Redmond, WA), Krueger; Anthony D. (Woodinville, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 11/005,183
Filed: December 6, 2004

Software Patent News: Rieti: Software Patent and its Impact on Software Innovation in Japan

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:10:35 +0000

"In Japan, the software patent system has been reformed and now software has become a patentable subject matter. In this paper, this pro-patent shift on software is surveyed and its impact on software innovation is analyzed. Before the 1990's, inventions related to software could not be patented by themselves, but they could be applied when combined with hardware related inventions. Therefore, integrated electronics firms used to be the major software patent applicants. However, during the period from the late 1990's to the early 2000's, when software patent reforms were introduced, innovative activities (measuring patent applications) by independent software development firms began."

Source: http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/09080001.html

Software Patent News: Cordis: Tender: study on the quality of the patent system in Europe

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:08:47 +0000

"The European Commission's Directorate-General for Internal Market and Services has published a call for tenders for a study on the quality of the patent system in Europe. The aim is to conduct an economic analysis of the quality of patent rights in order to propose effective policy solutions for the optimal functioning of the future patent system in Europe, considering its objectives to encourage innovation and the diffusion of new technology and knowledge. This should take into account the co-existence of national and European patents, as well as a future Community patent, which is currently being negotiated between Member States."

Source: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=31111

Software Patent News: Onepeople: Patents, Video, and an Open Internet

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:47:34 +0000

"In light of this, Ogg Theora seems like a good alternative as it doesn’t seem to be encumbered by patents. Google and Apple, though, are not so sure. They believe Theora hasn’t been cooking long enough to draw the attention of any submarine patent holders. Theora advocates turn this argument around and suggest that H.264 could also have undiscovered patent encumbrances. I appreciate the logic of what they’re saying, but the fact that H.264 is already so wildly popular for so long seems to guarantee that any patent trolls would have surfaced by now. In any case, this is a great illustration of just how profoundly broken the patent system is, with respect to software. Instead of encouraging innovation, it is stifling it."

Source: http://onepeople.org/node/1563

Software Patent News: H-online: Open Invention Network starts buying patents

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:21:02 +0000

"The Open Invention Network (OIN) today announced that it was starting a new programme to acquire patents from "entrepreneurial inventors". The Distinguished Inventors Patent Acquisition programme offers cash for accepted patents while allowing the inventor to patent enhancements to the accepted patent. The OIN believe the programme will help independent inventors turn their patents into money, without them selling their patents to patent trolls, or companies seeking to "impede innovation"."

Source: http://www.h-online.com/open/Open-Invention-Network-starts-buying-patents--/news/113918

Software Patent News: EuropeanVoice: In tune with the needs of the EU's new pirates

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:00:05 +0000

"Before he knew it, Josefsson was part of a movement which claims to be saving the world from corporate control. In 2002 he became one of the leading opponents of the EU's software patent directive. He co-founded the Swedish chapter of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) with Engström and, without any knowledge of how to lobby politicians, he spearheaded the campaign against the directive. “When the directive was proposed in 2002, I and many others started following this from scratch,” he says. “We were computer programmers, students or entrepreneurs, and we knew nothing about how the EU worked. “It eventually developed into a grassroots movement equal in strength to the business associations and lobby groups you normally find in Brussels, to those whose views are normally heard and listened to,” he says. […] By early 2005, more than 400,000 people had signed a petition against the software patent directive and later that year it was rejected by the Parliament. Although Josefsson is keen to stress the collective effort involved in stopping the directive, it was also a personal victory."

Source: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/in-tune-with-the-needs-of-the-eu-s-new-pirates/65659.aspx

Software Patent News: SEC: eBay Inc.

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:37:09 +0000

"Skype licenses peer-to-peer communication technology from Joltid Limited pursuant to a license agreement between the parties. The parties had been discussing a dispute over the license. In March 2009, Skype Technologies S.A. filed a claim in the English High Court of Justice (No. HC09C00756) against Joltid Limited. Following the filing of the claim, Joltid purported to terminate the license agreement between the parties. In particular, Joltid has alleged that Skype should not possess, use or modify certain software source code and that, by doing so, and by disclosing such code in certain U.S. patent cases pursuant to orders from U.S. courts, Skype has breached the license agreement."

Source: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000119312509157212/d10q.htm

Software Patent News: GNU: How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:05:57 +0000

"We also use copyright to partially deflect the danger of software patents. We cannot make our programs safe from them — no program is ever safe from software patents in a country which allows them — but at least we prevent them from being used to make the program effectively non-free. The Swedish Pirate Party proposes to abolish software patents, and if that is done, this issue would go away. But until that is achieved, we must not lose our only defense for protection from patents."

Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html

Software Patent News: BusinessWeek: Are Patent Problems Stifling U.S. Innovation?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:47:08 +0000

"Arguments against software patents have a fundamental flaw. As any electrical engineer knows, solutions to problems implemented in software can also be realized in hardware, i.e., electronic circuits. The main reason for choosing a software solution is the ease in implementing changes, the main reason for choosing a hardware solution is speed of processing. Therefore, a time critical solution is more likely to be implemented in hardware. While a solution that requires the ability to add features easily will be implemented in software. As a result, to be intellectually consistent those people against software patents also have to be against patents for electronic circuits."

Source: http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review;jsessionid=320931FE291F4F7C1CDB75CCE9FD5AC1?action=all&style=wide&productId=42411&productCode=spec

Software Patent News: Law: A Decade Later, Amazon Finds Itself on Other Side of '1-Click' Patent Battle

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:42:07 +0000

"Ten years ago, Amazon.com riled the tech world when it sued Barnes & Noble with a patent on "1-click" buying. Critics cried that clicking once to order a book wasn't really an invention — and certainly not worthy of a patent. And it became the poster child for a patent system gone overboard. Now, Amazon is defending itself against Cordance Corp., a company that claims it filed for its patent on 1-click ordering before Amazon's application. The case, filed in 2006, is set for trial on Aug. 3 in Delaware — and Fenwick & West's Lynn Pasahow, the Palo Alto, Calif.-based lawyer who worked to enforce Amazon's 1-click patent, will now play defense for the online bookseller."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432339946&A_Decade_Later_Amazon_Finds_Itself_on_Other_Side_of_Click_Patent_Battle

Software Patent News: Groklaw: FSF: FOSS developers "still should not write software that depends on Mono"

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:17:01 +0000

"A few days later, an interview with Microsoft President Bob Muglia was published, and he made it clear that they considered C# one of these so-called "patented innovations": …the fact that [GNU/Linux] uses our patented intellectual property [sic] is a problem for our shareholders. We spend $7 billion a year on R&D, our shareholders expect us to protect or license or get economic benefit from our patented innovations. So how do we somehow get the appropriate economic return for our patented innovation…?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090717043855128

Software Patent News: Localtechwire: The patent office in crisis: When the going gets tough, the tough get going

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:13:43 +0000

"Bilski involves issues regarding what can be patented, and the Supreme Court decision could change the current approach to "method patents," and perhaps even impact "software patents." A further and more significant change may come from the President's nomination of David Kappos of IBM to be the next Director of the Patent Office. While in the past, IBM was a prolific filer of patent applications, many of them covering business methods and software, it has filed an amicus brief in Bilski opposing the patentability of business method patents. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, IBM defends approval of software patents. Mr. Kappos announced his opposition to business method patents last year by stating that "[y]ou're creating a new 20-year monopoly for no good reason." Thus, it is unclear where Mr. Kappos will attempt to draw the line between software and business method inventions worthy of patent protection."

Source; http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/story/5576467/

Software Patent News: IPWatchDog: Is Software Patentable?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:05:43 +0000

"I am a software engineer who writes about that topic and related areas of computer science. Recently, I published an article titled Software Engineering != Computer Science, which discusses the differences between programming and formal (mathematical) computer science. In response to that article, IPWatchdog.com kindly invited me to comment about some of the controversy surrounding patents for software. I gladly accepted. My position is that software must be patentable, or 500 years of patent laws make no sense."

Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/15/is-software-patentable/id=4130/

Jonas Bosson: Threats in a Patent litigation treaty

noreply@blogger.com (bosson) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:31:30 +0000

Benjamin, president at ffii.org has written an excellent article to explain the threats in UPLS (Untied Patent Litigation System). The article gives more reasons to stay clear of any treaties like this until we have a better community patent implemented in the EU to work with. Otherwise it would be like a roof with no pillars.

The second question makes the threats in the treaty so very concrete for us programmers:

"Q2: If software patents are enabled by the UPLS, what might be the effects on how computer programmers work? Please give examples"

The reply is divided into:
1. Higher total costs of litigation
2. EU-wide injunctions to stop a software product
3. Out of court settlements for most of European players
4. Loss of legal certainty

Finally Bejamin gives a short pros and cons list:

Pros:

EU-wide injunctions and damages for patent holders
EU-wide revocation of a patent for defendents
Possible invalidation of software patents EU-wide (not very likely, but possible)
High costs of litigation, good for the patentee to reach a deal out of court
Uniform caselaw developed for software and biotech patents
No diverging decisions over the same patent by multiple courts

Cons:

No real legislator to correct decisions of such international patent court
No divergence of decisions which might show to the legislator where to intervene
Possible validation of software patents EU-wide (very likely)
Possible forum-shopping with a pro-patent court located in Turkey, Latvia or somewhere else
More incentives for patentees to litigate and enforce their patents
Pro-patentee courts
Raise of the costs of litigation for most member states and stakeholders, due to the specialisation of the courts
Possible EU-wide injunctions to stop a product (think to the Blackberry removed at the scale of the EU)
No judicial review to correct the eventual deviance of such specialized courts
Potential higher costs of litigation for the patent holder

A recommended read.

Also see the EU-Councils request (9669/09) for comments from the European Court of Justice, ECJ, on the UPLS draft (7928/09). Lets hope that the ECJ can see the obvious conflict of interests with the IPRE-Directive and innovation policy legislation within EU. The UPLS process is one of the top priorities for the Swedish presidency until the end of 2009. The pressure is high.

/jonas