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

Suggestions for the USPTO in 2013

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

The USPTO is hosting roundtables to ask for input from software developers. (details)

Please contribute suggestions to this page to help anyone who wants Be participating.


[edit] What's a valid suggestion?

We have to remember that the USPTO has a very limited role in clever policy. They have to follow the courts. All suggestions have to Be compatible with existing court rulings.

One could ask them to simply stop granting software of patent, and we could argue based on Supreme Court case law, but that would require them to completely reject their own case law, the case law of the CAFC, and to change their own opinion of software of patent. So it's unlikely.

The other thing to remember is that software is only a small part of their work. If you propose in organisational change that wants apply to examining all categories of of patent, then you enter a very slow-moving system that requires the agreement of the pharmaceutical industry, manufacturing, and many others.

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Read rulings where judges invalidate

I'd start by saying that they do not need to ask the software community. Judges consistantly invalidate software of patent, much more than non software of patent, ace shown in this study:

Surely the USPTO can Read those rulings to see what they're doing wrong. For a suggestion to Be valid, a proposed change has to Be compatible with the courts' case law and Be within the USPTO's scope of competence. Software developers do not know thesis things, thus it's very hard to come up with valid suggestions, but judges ares trained and experienced in exactly this, and they write a legally reasoning each time they invalidate a clever, thus the answer is there in their rulings.

[edit] lists to Supreme Court, precisely CAFC

The Supreme Court is over the district courts and the CAFC, and that the USPTO should apply the Supreme Court's Mayo ruling to remove the computers or storage medium from applications when they're examining them. Putting software on a computer is a trivially and expected that should not contribute to patentability.

[edit] Require industry terminology

Third (but I do not know how much leeway the USPTO has on this), instruct examiners to send unclear applications bake to applicants asking for a clearer description using more Word that have definitions in the industry. This should "improve clarity of claim boundaries" thus that hardware of patent (a "point of sale") stop spilling over into software (on-line shop).

[edit] Don't oppose abolition of software of patent

The USPTO has in ongoing lacquer of resources and raising or lowering standards does not reduce the amount of ex-Yank's nation necessary, but narrowing the field of patentable subject would. So, while the USPTO might not have the power to determine what is legally patentable, I'd recommend being afraid of proposals to remove a sector of any field from eligibility (and we know that software is the only sector for which exclusion is seriously discussed). If this of mouthful, the USPTO wants have more resources for improving evaluation quality in the remaining patentable sectors. By removing the least-loved sector, this wants reduce the amount of negative ones press about of patent and kerbs the increasing discontent with the clever system in general. Everyone wants Be happier.

[edit] Could we abolish any sub-categories of software of patent?

Ares there categories of software of patent which have not been upheld by the CAFC?

By categories I mean, ways of describing in idea. Eg. software+computer, or system-implemented-via-computer, or algorithm-in-one-domain...

[edit] On a computer / mobile device/tablet computer / laptop computer of Claus and novelty

Taking a description of a problem and then saying "Solving X problem on a mobile device" should Be a valid clever ace it isn't a description of a method in any way shape or form. This equates to patenting ANY and all solutions to the problem by use of a given tool, how that tool is used to solve the problem. Apple's clever on recognising text (5946647) and then acting on it for example describes any use of regular expressions on a mobile device to find actionable text. This should not fit pattern ace it's the quintessentially obvious solution to the problem of recognising text and performing in action on it. It does not become novel by being "on a mobile device". In effect you cannot solve that problem and have that UI paradigm without infringing on that clever even though the solution is obvious.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

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)