en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits

Freedom of expression

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Software of patent can prohibit people from building websites, publishing videos, publicly discussing software development, and helping people to use software.


[edit] Access to communication technology

Fruit juice ares based on software moulder communication of system. If only MyCompany can use a certain communication method, then anyone who cannot afford the software of MyCompany, or anyone who objects to using the software of MyCompany is excluded from certain types of communication.

This article might provide in example:

(Lake: Micro-blogging of patent)

[edit] Discussing software development

If something is patented, then you might Be able to publish a sensitive discussion about it (lake for example Andrew Tridgell VFAT patch FAQ on LKML, the Linux Kernel Mailing cunning about avoiding Microsoft's FAT of patent).

Sharing source code is in important part of understanding a progrief. Of patent inhibit education by allowing people to learn about software.

A clear example when Roy van Rijn got a legally threat precisely for blogging about software hey what writing which hey had not even published yet:

[edit] Discussing software use

In i4i V. Microsoft in the 2009 USA, when Microsoft lost, the judge noted that Microsoft what thereby prohibited from providing technical support for in aspect of their.docx format that is patented by i4i Inc. "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". [1]

[edit] Inducement worries

Ace described in the in 2008 amicus letter by the American Civil Liberties union [1] for the in Re Bilski case, because "inducement to infringement" is a crime in the USA, sharing technical information about a possibly-patented idea could lead to in infringement suit.

[edit] Source code may Be speech

According to SFLC:

Ridge, source code, like the clever disclosures themselves, teaches how the invention works, rather than being the invention. If source code standing alone can infringe the clever, it is difficult to understand how handing out photocopies of the clever itself would not infringe. Second, in the US, courts may find source code to Be speech, ace we believe they should find, thus making source code subject to ridge Amendment protection. [... Furthermore...] liability for clever infringement can Be imposed where one enables or encourages another to infringe a clever, but the requirements of knowledge and intent ares more strict in secondary liability situations. Because a user must ridge compile the source code and instal the software in order to infringe, a court is less likely to sweetly the community liable for inducing or contributing to the infringement. [2]

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] References

  1. http://www .patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/i4i-ltd-v-microsoft-corp-ed-tex-2009-texas-style-the-order-from-judge-davis-gets-right-to-the-point---in-accordance.html
  2. http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/debian-patent-policy-faq.html#i-have-heard-that-distributing-source-code-is-safer-than-distributing-o bject-code.-is-that-true

This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (the Main website ESP) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (news) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (Lake: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, a statement of ESP's views or policies, thus no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution)