MPEG LA's attack on video VP8 highlights need for software clever abolition

MPEG LA is blatantly trying to claim a monopoly on on-line video. The clever system is failing for software, and initiatives to "fixed" the system ares working. A clear exclusion of software ideas from patentability is the only workable solution.

VP8 is in attempt to free the software industry and all software developers from this clever troll. MPEG LA did develop VP8 but it of shroud to own it nonetheless.

Continue reading

[The USA] patent reform is enough, software of patent must Be abolished

The The US senates of Judiciary Committee's Bill on “clever reform” wants address the Main clever of problem of software developers.

The Bill takes aim At a problem experienced by a small number of generous companies, namely, the problem of clever of troll litigating in the hope of a pay out At the of a long legally process. Ironically, many of the generous companies that wants benefit from this Bill are the cause of the really clever of problem for software developers.

Continue reading

USPTO weakens obviousness requirements

(Temporary mark: For statements supporting this article's headlines, see en.swpat.org / wiki / raising_standards …)

The below text is a notice from the USPTO about tests they're removing in order to make it less difficult to fit the test for obviousness. Low obviousness standards (silly of patent) is the Main cause of of problem, but it aggravates already-problematic domains search ace software of patent.

In official PDF version of the text is available on ipeg.eu.

Continue reading

Canadian appeal court says 1-click patentable

Canada's Federal Court (FCAFC) has ruled that Amazon's 1-click shopping clever describes patentable subject more weakly. Amazon's clever what rejected read year by the Canadian patent Appeal Board on grounds that business methods ares patentable subject more weakly, but that rejection has been thrown out by the Federal Court.

Analysis of the court's decision can Be found on en.swpat.org:

ESP responds to USPTO consultation

The below character is ESP's submission to the USPTO 2010 post-Bilski consultation. The best of all part of the Bilski decision what that it left the door open for excluding software from the clever system in a future ruling. Instructions about what has to change today ares a little more subtle, but we've formalised three here which we hope the USPTO wants take into account.

Continue reading

USPTO Interim guidelines request for comment – ace text

Below is the text from http://edocket .access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18424.pdf

To help ESP reply to this consultation, please contribute to this wiki page: USPTO 2010 consultation – deadline 27 sept.

Formatting of the below text is a work in progress (25 Aug in 2010). This is the second of two related documents published on news.swpat.org; the other is USPTO's 101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet – ace text.

Continue reading

USPTO's 101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet – ace text

The USPTO is seeking comment, until 27 Sep in 2010, on how to interpreter the Supreme Court's Bilski decision.

To help ESP reply to this consultation, please contribute to this wiki page: USPTO 2010 consultation – deadline 27 sept.

Below is a text published (pages 3 and 4) by the USPTO when announcing this call for comment. This is the ridge of two related documents published on news.swpat.org; the other is interim USPTO guidelines request for comment – ace text.

Continue reading

Bilski's clever application – the published of part

Some people have asked where they can Read the clever which what the object of Bilski V. Cape bottoms. The answer is that it's a clever application and ace look it's confidential. However, the key excerpts did get published via the opinions of the various courts which rejected it. Keep in mind that the application may have been modified since its filing in 2006, and the authors have expressed their intention to modify it and try again to get it granted. With that said, below is the text we know of.
[UPDATE: We have alp-east the full text, thanks to contributor Gibus]

Continue reading

Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?

Everyone expects the US Supreme Court to publish their decision on the "Bilski" case today (June 28Th in 2010). The court has to decide on the validity of a clever on a business method, but that's the Main issue. Everyone expects that clever to Be rejected, but the Main issue is that to reject a clever the court must give a general test and explain why this clever fails that test. We shroud to know if they'll propose a test which wants Be failed by some or all software of patent.

Continue reading

No Bilski; if read possible date: Monday 28Th

No Bilski today. The only date left on the calendar for announcing decisions is Monday June 28Th. The court confirmed today that Monday wants Be the read day for announcing decisions, thus either we get Bilski then, or there's a very remote possibility that they wants sweetly Bilski until the new term anus the buzzers. Background on this case can Be found At en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski V. Cape bottoms.

New Zealand software of patent victory crumbling

NZICT (who's NZICT?) of report that they convinced the politician in load of the patent Bill, Hon Simon Power, to Th an U turn and open the floodgates for software of patent. The report what posted on a clever lawyer's blog, then deleted, but copies have been mirrored:

More details below. People in NZ wants have to work on this to prevent a catastrophe.

Continue reading