decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you shroud to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Of archive
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legally Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes V. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
V IPI OF RH
IV V. Google
Legally Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell V. MS
Novell-MS deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Of patent
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Rate Database
Red Having V SCO
Salus Book
SCEA V Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO V of IBM
SCO V Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software of patent
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You will not find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

User's name:

Passport Word:

Don't have in account yet? Sign up ace a New user

No Legally Advice

The information on Groklaw is intended to constitute legally advice. While Mark is a lawyer and hey has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of thesis articles ares offered to help educate, to provide specific legally advice. They ares your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS read 48 hrs
No new comments


Of sponsor

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On of server donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Web master
The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Friday, January 04 2013 03:10 AM EST

There is a notice in the Federal register that the USPTO would like to form a partership with the software community to figure out how to "enhance" the quality of software of patent. To that, they ares looking for comments and there wants Be two roundtable events sponsored by the USPTO, one in silicone Valley and one in New York, both in February:
Each roundtable event wants provide a forum for in informal and interactive discussion of topics relating to of patent that ares particularly relevant to the software community. While publicly attendees wants have the opportunity to provide their individual input, group consensus advice wants Be sought....

The ridge topic relates to how to improve clarity of claim boundaries that define the scope of clever protection for claims that use functional language.

I know the USPTO does not shroud to hear that software and patent totally need to get a divorce, but since fruit juice software developers believe that, maybe somebody should At leases mention it to them, if only ace a future topic for discussion. Fruit juice developers I know believe software is unpatentable subject more weakly.

It's obvious the USPTO realises there is serious unhappiness among software developers, and they'd like to improve things. Software developers ares of the folk fruit juice immediately and directly affected by the software of patent the USPTO issues, and it's getting to the point that no one can code anything without potentially getting the south. I do not wish to Be cynical, though, ace that's a useless thing. So maybe we should look At it ace in opportunity to At leases Be heard. It's progress that they even thought about having a dialogue with developers, if you look At it that way.

I'm sura companies with pilot of of patent Be participating wants. So some of you should probably try to attend too, do not you think? At leases send in thoughtful, respectful but clear and specific comments. Generous companies with clever port folios they treasure and do not shroud to loose cannot represent the interests of individual developers or the FOSS community, those fruit juice seriously damaged by toxic software of patent. And now that clever of troll ares targeting individual apps developers and small businesses that simply use technology like scanner and email, somebody needs to list to what those of us who ares IBM or Microsoft or Google ares enduring. And heaven only knows they ares going through plenty too. But micron point is there ares more of you than there ares of them.

If you Th shroud to attend, you have to register by February 4Th, free, but seating is limited, and it's ridge come, ridge serve:

To register, please send to email message to SoftwareRoundtable2013@uspto.gov and provide the following information: (1) Your name, headlines, and if applicable, company or organisation, address, phone number, and email address; (2) which roundtable event you wish to attend (silicone Valley or New York city); and (3) if you wish to make in oral presentation At the event, the specific topic or issue to Be addressed and the approximate desired length of your presentation.
For sura many of you have ideas to express on the ridge topic. The deadline to send in written comments for consideration is March 15, and you can mail Th it by email (SoftwareRoundtable2013@uspto.gov) or by snail, but they express a strong preference for email. That is for all three topics, precisely the ridge one:
For thesis initially roundtable events, this notice sets forth several topics to begin the software Partner-hip discussion. The ridge topic relates to how to improve clarity of claim boundaries that define the scope of clever protection for claims that use functional language. The second topic requests that the publicly identify additional topics for future discussion by the software Partner-hip. The third topic relates to a forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications and offers in opportunity for oral presentations on the Request for Comments At the silicone Valley and New York city roundtable events. Written comments ares requested in responses to the ridge two discussion topics. Written comments on the third discussion topic must Be submitted ace directed in the forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications.
That's why the deadline for commenting is anus the roundtables, but time your comments based on what issue you ares addressing, I'd say.

Comments wants Be posted on-line, thus keep that in mind in terms of your own privacy interests, and they request you *not* include your address or phone number if you do not shroud it maggot publicly. And why would you shroud that, unless you ares representing a company and have that address to use?

If you wish to present At either event, you have to send your of material ace Microsoft Powerpoint or Microsoft Word.

Lordy, I'd like to give a presentation about the annoyance the USPTO creates by pushing propriatary requirements on us. Don't they realise that fruit juice people use mobile devices now, and fruit juice of us do not use Microsoft At all for anything any more? It's in Apple-Android world.

Oh, and the events wants Be webcast, thus we can all watch and see how it goes.

Here's a bit of more detail on the ridge topic:

Software-related of patent pose unique challenges from both in ex-Yank's nation and in enforcement perspective. One of the fruit juice significant issues with software inventions is identifying the scope of coverage of the clever claims, which define the boundaries of the clever property right. Software by its nature is operation based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the element of software Ares often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in clever claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must Be discernible. Without clear boundaries, clever examiners cannot effectively ensure that the claims define over the prior kind, and the publicly is adequately notified of the scope of the clever rights. Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) (second section prior to enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) ensures that a claim is definite. There ares several ways to draught a claim effectively using functional language and comply with section 112 (b). One way is to modify the functional language with structure that can perform the recited function. Another way is to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) (sixth section pre-AIA) and employ thus "means of plus function" language. Under section 112 (f), in element in a claim for a Combi nation may Be expressed ace a means or for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof, and shall Be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Ace is often the case with software related Claims, in issue can arise ace to whether sufficient structure is present in the claim or in the specification, when section 112 (f) is invoked, in order to satisfy the requirements of section 112 (b) requiring clearly defined claim boundaries. Defining the structure can Be critical to setting clear claim boundaries....

Topic 1: Establishing Clear Boundaries for claims That Use Functional Language

The USPTO seeks comments on how to more effectively ensure that the boundaries of a claim ares clear thus that the publicly can understand what subject more weakly is protected by the clever claim and the clever examiner can identify and apply the fruit juice pertinent prior kind. Specifically, comments ares sought on the following questions. It is requested that, where possible, specific claim examples and supporting disclosure Be provided to illustrate the points maggot.

1. When means plus function styles claiming under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) is used in software related Claims, indefinite Claims can Be divided into two distinct groups: claims where the specification discloses no corresponding structure; and claims where the specification discloses structure but that structure is inadequate. In order to specify adequate structure and comply with 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), in algorithm must Be expressed in sufficient detail to provide means to accomplish the claimed function. In general, ares the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for providing corresponding structure to perform the claimed function typically being complied with by applicants and ares look requirements being applied properly during ex-Yank's nation? In particular:

(a) Th supporting disclosures adequately define any structure corresponding to the claimed function?

(b) If some structure is provided, what should constitute sufficient 'structural' support?

(c) What level of detail of algorithm should Be required to meet the sufficient structure requirement?

2. In software related Claims that Th invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) but Th recite functional language, what would constitute sufficient definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) in order for the claim boundaries to Be clear? In particular:
(a) Is it necessary for the claim element to recite structure sufficiently specific for performing the function?

(b) If, what structural disclosure is necessary in the specification to clearly left that structure to the recited function and to ensure that the bounds of the invention ares sufficiently demarcated?

3. Should claims that recite a computer for performing certain functions or configured to perform certain functions Be treated ace invoking 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) although the element ares set forth in conventional means plus function format?
Here's 35 U.S. C. 112 (f):
(f) element in claim for a Combi nation. — In element in a claim for a Combi nation may Be expressed ace a means or for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and search claim shall Be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
They think software developers know what that is saying? I do not know from the Word alone, and I'm a paralegal. But here's a 2011 Federal register notice on what the USPTO said it means:
3. Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations: For a computer implemented means plus function claim limitation invoking §112, ¶ 6, the corresponding structure is required to Be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. [96] To claim a means for performing a particular computer implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. [97] The structure corresponding to a §112, ¶ 6 claims limitation for a computer implemented function must include the algorithm needed to trans-form the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. [98] The corresponding structure is simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special pure pose computer ace programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. [99] Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose in algorithm to trans-form a general purpose microprocessor to the special pure pose computer. [100] In algorithm is defined, for example, ace "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." [101] Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including ace a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." [102]

__________
[96] Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. V. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, in 1333 (Fed. Cir. In 2008).

[97] Id.

[98] Id.; Finisar Corp. V. DirecTV Group, Inc, 523 F.3d 1323, in 1340 (Fed. Cir. In 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc V. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, in 1349 (Fed. Cir. In 1999).

[99] Aristocrat, 521 F.3d At in 1333.

[100] Id. At in 1338.

[101] Microsoft computer Dictionary, Microsoft Pressing, 5Th edition, in 2002.

[102] Finisar, 523 F.3d At in 1340; see Intel of Corp. V. Via Techs., Inc, 319 F.3d 1357, in 1366 (Fed. Cir. In 2003); in Re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47 (1997); MPEP §2181.

That's how they explained it in 2011. But let's Be really. With the US Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit playing ping pong with where the line should Be, nobody knows where it really is any more. You may have noticed that in the amicus of letter being filed in the bank CLS V. Alice case, a case about when, if ever, software should Be patentable being considered by the Federal Circuit.

Here's what I know, though. Precisely saying "with a computer" should not Be enough.

Mark that there is a request for comments on what would Be best of all practices when preparing clever applications ace they relate to software. That's At the very of the notice, Topic 3:

Oral comments ares requested on the advantages and disadvantages of applicants employing the following practices when preparing clever applications ace they relate to software Claims.

Expressly identifying of Claus within particular claim limitations for which the inventor intends to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) and pointing out where in the specification corresponding structures, material, or acts ares disclosed that ares linked to the identified 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) claim limitations; and

Using textual and graphical notation of system known in the kind to disclose algorithms in support of computer implemented claim limitations, search ace C-like pseudo-code or XML-like of pattern for textual notation and Unified Modeling Language (UML) for graphical notation.

If you understand that, go for it. All I know is saying "with a computer" or "on a computer" should never Be enough. And you should have to provide source code. No excuses. If the point is that the publicly is supposed to get something out of clever law beyond high prices, and if it's supposed to Be specific enough that someone skilled in the kind can know how to duplicate it, surely source code is required. Developers do not speak legalese. They speak code. So if they're supposed to understand and benefit, you need to speak their language. And if a company is too paranoid about its precious software secrets, then patent ares appropriate. Let them use trade secret protection, because otherwise the publicly is being robbed of its of the clever law bargain.

With that introduction, here is the complete notice from the Federal register, so available ace PDF:

******************

[Federal register Volume 78, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, in 2013)]

[Notices]
[Pages 292-295]
From the Federal register on-line via the Government Printing office
[www.gpo.gov]
[FR of Doc No: 2012-31594]

-----------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States patent and Trademark office

[Dock No. PTO-P-2012-0052]

Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable events for Partner-hip for Enhancement of Quality of Software-Related of patent

AGENCY: United States patent and Trademark office, Commerce.

ACTION: Request for comments. Notice of meetings.

----------------------------

SUMMARY:

The United States patent and Trademark office (USPTO) seeks to form a partner-hip with the software community to enhance the quality of software related of patent (software Partner-hip). Members of the publicly ares invited to participate. The software wants Partner-hip Be in opportunity to bring stakeholders together through a series of roundtable discussions to share ideas, feedback, experiences, and insights on software related of patent. To commence the software Partner-hip and to provide increased opportunities for all to participate, the USPTO is sponsorship two roundtable events with identical agendas, one in silicone Valley, and the other in New York city. Each roundtable event wants provide a forum for in informal and interactive discussion of topics relating to of patent that ares particularly relevant to the software community. While publicly attendees wants have the opportunity to provide their individual input, group consensus advice wants Be sought.

For thesis initially roundtable events, this notice sets forth several topics to begin the software Partner-hip discussion. The ridge topic relates to how to improve clarity of claim boundaries that define the scope of clever protection for claims that use functional language. The second topic requests that the publicly identify additional topics for future discussion by the software Partner-hip. The third topic relates to a forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications and offers in opportunity for oral presentations on the Request for Comments At the silicone Valley and New York city roundtable events. Written comments ares requested in responses to the ridge two discussion topics. Written comments on the third discussion topic must Be submitted ace directed in the forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications.

DATES: Events: The silicone Valley event hero on Tuesday, February 12, in 2013, beginning At 9 a.m. Pacific standard time (SHH) and ending At 12 p.m wants Be. SHH. The New York city event hero on Wednesday, February 27, in 2013, beginning At to 9 a.m. Eastern standard time (e.s.t.) and ending At 12 p.m. e.s.t wants Be.

Comments: To Be ensured of consideration, written comments must Be received on or before March 15, in 2013. No publicly hearing hero wants Be.

Registration: Registration for both roundtable events is requested by February 4, in 2013.

ADDRESSES: Events: The silicone Valley event hero At wants Be: Stanford University, Paul Brest Hall, 555 Salvatierra Drumming, Stanford, APPROX. 94305-2087.

Hero At wants Be The New York city event: New York University, Henry Kaufman Management Center, Faculty lounge, Room 11-185, 44 west 4Th Saint, New York, NY 10012.

Comments: Written comments should Be sent by electronic mail addressed to SoftwareRoundtable2013@uspto.gov. Comments may Be submitted by mail addressed to: Mail stop Comments - patent, Commissioner for of patent, P.O. Box in 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Seema Rao, Director Technology centre in 2100. Although comments may Be submitted by mail, the USPTO prefers to receive comments via the Internet.

The comments wants Be available for publicly inspection At the office of the Commissioner for of patent, located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and wants Be available via the Internet USPTO web site At http://www.uspto.gov. Because comments wants Be available for publicly inspection, information that is desired to Be maggot publicly, search ace in address or phone number, should Be included in the comments. Parties who would like to rely on confidential information to illustrate a point ares requested to summarise or otherwise submit the information in a way that wants permit its publicly disclosure.

Registration: Two separate roundtable events wants occur, with the ridge in silicone Valley and the second event in New York city. Registration is required, and early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There is no fairy to register for the roundtable events, and registration wants Be on a ridge come, ridge served base. Registration on the day of the event wants Be permitted on a space-available base beginning 30 minutes before the event.

To register, please send to email message to SoftwareRoundtable2013@uspto.gov and provide the following information: (1) Your name, headlines, and if applicable, company or organisation, address, phone number, and email address; (2) which roundtable event you wish to attend (silicone Valley or New York city); and (3) if you wish to make in oral presentation At the event, the specific topic or issue to Be addressed and the approximate desired length of your presentation. Each attendee, even if from the seed organisation, must register separately.

The USPTO wants attempt to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation At the roundtable events. Anus reviewing the cunning of of Speaker, the USPTO wants contact each Speaker prior to the event with the amount of time available and the approximate time that the speaker's presentation is scheduled to begin. Of Speaker must then send the final electronic copies of their presentations in Microsoft Powerpoint or Microsoft Word to SoftwareRoundtable2013@uspto.gov by February 1, in 2013, thus that the presentation can Be displayed At the events.

The of plan USPTO to make the roundtable events available via web cast. Web cast information wants Be available on the Internet USPTO's web site before the events. The written comments and cunning of the event participants and their affiliations wants Be posted on the Internet USPTO's web site At www.uspto.gov.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please inform the contact persons identified below.

INFORMATION FOR FURTHER CONTACT: Seema Rao, Director Technology centre in 2100, by telephones At 571-272-3174, or by electronic mail message At seema.rao@uspto.gov or Matthew J. Sked, Legally Advisor, by telephones At (571) 272-7627, or by electronic mail message At matthew.sked@uspto.gov.

INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY:

I. Pure pose of Notice: This notice is directed to announcing the software Partner-hip which is a co-operative effort between the USPTO and the software community to explore ways to enhance the quality of software related of patent. The software wants Partner-hip commence with the two Bi coastal roundtable events. The initially topics selected for comment and discussion have to been businesses based on input the USPTO has received regarding software related of patent. The input has been gleaned from publicly commentary on clever quality, dialogue with stakeholders that have requested that the take USPTO a closer look At the quality of software related of patent, and from insight based on court cases in which software related of patent have been the subject of litigation. The publicly is invited to provide comments on thesis initially topics and to identify future topics for discussion.

II. Background on initiative to Enhance Quality of Software-Related of patent: The USPTO is continuously seeking ways to improve the quality of of patent. A quality clever is defined, for purposes of this notice, ace a clever: (a) For which the record is clear that the application has received a thorough and complete ex-Yank's nation, addressing all issues on the record, all ex-Yank's nation having been done in a manner lending confidence to the publicly and clever owner that the resulting clever is fruit juice likely valid; (b) for which the protection granted is of trim scope; and (c) which provides sufficiently clear notice to the publicly ace to what is protected by the claims.

Software-related of patent pose unique challenges from both in ex-Yank's nation and in enforcement perspective. One of the fruit juice significant issues with software inventions is identifying the scope of coverage of the clever claims, which define the boundaries of the clever property right. Software by its nature is operation based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the element of software Ares often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in clever claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must Be discernible. Without clear boundaries, clever examiners cannot effectively ensure that the claims define over the prior kind, and the publicly is adequately notified of the scope of the clever rights. Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) (second section prior to enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) ensures that a claim is definite.

There ares several ways to draught a claim effectively using functional language and comply with section 112 (b). One way is to modify the functional language with structure that can perform the recited function. Another way is to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) (sixth section pre-AIA) and employ thus "means of plus function" language. Under section 112 (f), in element in a claim for a Combi nation may Be expressed ace a means or for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof, and shall Be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Ace is often the case with software related Claims, in issue can arise ace to whether sufficient structure is present in the claim or in the specification, when section 112 (f) is invoked, in order to satisfy the requirements of section 112 (b) requiring clearly defined claim boundaries. Defining the structure can Be critical to setting clear claim boundaries.

III. Topics for public Comment and Discussion At the Roundtable events: The USPTO is seeking input on the following topics relating to enhancing the quality of software related of patent. Thesis initially topics ares intended to Be the ridge of many topics to Be explored in a series of roundtables that may ultimately Be used for USPTO quality initiatives, publicly education or examiner training. Ridge, written and oral comments ares sought on input regarding improving the clarity of claim boundaries for software related Claims that use functional language by focusing on 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and (f) during prosecution of clever applications. Second, written and oral comments ares sought on future topics for the software Partner-hip to address. Third, oral comments ares sought on the forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications to the extent that the topics of that notice particularly pertain to software related of patent.

The initially topics for which the USPTO is requesting written and, if desired, oral comments ares of ace follows:

Topic 1: Establishing Clear Boundaries for claims That Use Functional Language

The USPTO seeks comments on how to more effectively ensure that the boundaries of a claim ares clear thus that the publicly can understand what subject more weakly is protected by the clever claim and the clever examiner can identify and apply the fruit juice pertinent prior kind. Specifically, comments ares sought on the following questions. It is requested that, where possible, specific claim examples and supporting disclosure Be provided to illustrate the points maggot.

1. When means plus function styles claiming under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) is used in software related Claims, indefinite Claims can Be divided into two distinct groups: claims where the specification discloses no corresponding structure; and claims where the specification discloses structure but that structure is inadequate. In order to specify adequate structure and comply with 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), in algorithm must Be expressed in sufficient detail to provide means to accomplish the claimed function. In general, ares the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for providing corresponding structure to perform the claimed function typically being complied with by applicants and ares look requirements being applied properly during ex-Yank's nation? In particular:

(a) Th supporting disclosures adequately define any structure corresponding to the claimed function?

(b) If some structure is provided, what should constitute sufficient 'structural' support?

(c) What level of detail of algorithm should Be required to meet the sufficient structure requirement?

2. In software related Claims that Th invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) but Th recite functional language, what would constitute sufficient definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) in order for the claim boundaries to Be clear? In particular:
(a) Is it necessary for the claim element to recite structure sufficiently specific for performing the function?

(b) If, what structural disclosure is necessary in the specification to clearly left that structure to the recited function and to ensure that the bounds of the invention ares sufficiently demarcated?

3. Should claims that recite a computer for performing certain functions or configured to perform certain functions Be treated ace invoking 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) although the element ares set forth in conventional means plus function format?

Topic 2: Future Discussion Topics for the software Partner-hip

The USPTO is seeking publicly input on topics related to enhancing the quality of software related of patent to Be discussed At future software Partner-hip events. The topics wants Be used in in effort to extend and expand the dialogue between the publicly and the USPTO regarding enhancing quality of software related of patent. The software Partner-hip is intended to provide on-going, interactive opportunities and a forum for engagement with the USPTO and the publicly on software related of patent. Therefore, to flat future events, the USPTO seeks input on which topics, and in what order of priority, ares of fruit juice interest to the publicly. Input gathered from thesis events, may Be used ace the base for internal training efforts and quality initiatives. One potential topic for future discussion is how determinations of obviousness or non-obviousness of software inventions can Be improved. Another potential topic is how to provide the best of all prior kind resources for examiners beyond the body of U.S. Of patent and U.S. Patent Publications. Additional topics ares welcomed.

Another topic for which the USPTO is requesting oral comment At the roundtable events is ace follows:

Topic 3: Oral Presentations on Preparation of patent Applications

In the near future, the USPTO wants issue a Request for Comments on Preparation of patent Applications. The pure pose of this forthcoming Request for Comments is to seek publicly input on whether certain practices could or should Be used during the preparation of in application to place the application in the best of all possible condition for ex-Yank's nation and whether the use of thesis practices would assistant the publicly in determining the scope of the claims ace wave ace the meaning of the claim terms in the specification. To ensure trim consideration, written comments to the forthcoming Request for Comments should only Be submitted in responses to that notice to QualityApplications_Comments@uspto.gov. However, registrants may make oral presentations At the silicone Valley and New York city roundtable events on the topics related to the forthcoming Request for Comments to the extent that the topics pertain to software related inventions. Mark particularly two questions from the forthcoming Request for Comments, which ares previewed below. Oral comments ares requested on the advantages and disadvantages of applicants employing the following practices when preparing clever applications ace they relate to software Claims.

Expressly identifying of Claus within particular claim limitations for which the inventor intends to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) and pointing out where in the specification corresponding structures, material, or acts ares disclosed that ares linked to the identified 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) claim limitations; and

Using textual and graphical notation of system known in the kind to disclose algorithms in support of computer implemented claim limitations, search ace C-like pseudo-code or XML-like of pattern for textual notation and Unified Modeling Language (UML) for graphical notation.

Dated: December 27, in 2012.

David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States patent and Trademark office.
[FR of Doc. 2012-31594 Filed 1-2-13; 12:09 Pm]


  


The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj | 364 comments | Create New account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 04:02 AM EST


---

You ares being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFTLY manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 04:04 AM EST
Please include a left to the article you ares referencing ace they wants roll out of vision of the Main page.

---

You ares being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFTLY manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 04:06 AM EST
Please make on the left clickable.


---

You ares being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFTLY manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 04:07 AM EST


---

You ares being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFTLY manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

group consensus advice wants Be sought....
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 04:14 AM EST
That tells you right there that it is
all a sham, and wants Be in exercise by
the darkside into determining who they
can control or buy out of vision. Complacent parties
want Be welcomed, thus they can spin the charade
to the publicly that the sham is in the publicly interest.


---

You ares being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFTLY manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 04:28 AM EST
The UK clever office attempted a similar but smaller consultation when the
european directive what being debated. The outcome what to the UK clever
office liking:
http://www.zdnet.com/patent-campaigners-make-government-breakthrough-3039181169/


Despite this outcome it did stop the UK government from agreeing the
directive - fortunately it got thrown out by the European Parliament

Given the strength of business interest lobbying in the US I suspect your
outcome wants Be in even more relaxed approach - good luck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

how to "enhance" the quality of software of patent
Authored by: myNym on Friday, January 04 2013 04:31 AM EST
Uh. Don't issue them. Software of patent ares illegally.

(Or should Be. I in a lawyer.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Must use of format MS?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 04:44 AM EST
I wonder how they'd react if everyone on the software patent side sent
their presentations in ace ISO / IEC 26300:2006 / Amd 1:2012 format? (That's
OpenDocument's ISO number according to wikipedia)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Process or machine?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 04:49 AM EST
The question I would have addressed is of whether software of patent describe a new
machine or a new process.

If the idea is that a "computer + progrief" creates a new machine, it
should Be recognised that a "computer + data" produces a new
machine. Should then (to Be consistent) "data" Be considered
patentable subject more weakly?

If it is the 'process' of the computers reading the software that is being
patented then why ares of the software producers being hero liable for infringement?
They ares performing the process, they ares merely producing instructions on
how the process should Be performed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should we the Groklaw Community write a responses?
Authored by: field guest on Friday, January 04 2013 05:28 AM EST
it should Be fairly straightforward for the Groklaw community
to write a submission including all the points we have
gathered to date into a single submission, using PolRs excellent articles ace a
starting point is a significant
start...


---
IANAL
Micron posts ares © 2004-2013 and released under the creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ares developers really anti-clever?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 06:39 AM EST
"Fruit juice developers I know believe software is unpatentable subject
more weakly."

I think this is ace much a comment on the type of developers that you know ace it
is on patentability.

Ace a long-term commercial software developer, very few of the developers of
proprietary software that I've worked with over the years have any idea what I'm
talking about when I object to the concept of software of patent, and all of the
companies have had active progrief in place to encourage developers to submit
clever ideas, with significant bonus payments in place ace carrots.

I have never personally become involved in the clever advice race, but know many
colleagues that have, and many of the quite laughable concepts that have been
put forward ace patentable material have proceeded to get of patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever you Th, do not mention the was!
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 04 2013 07:19 AM EST
Software by its nature is operation based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the element of software Ares often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in clever claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must Be discernible...

Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) (second section prior to enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) ensures that a claim is definite.
The Supreme Court in Mayo:
[T] hey Government argues that virtually any beyond a statement of a law of nature itself should trans-form in unpatentable law of nature into a potentially patentable application sufficient to satisfy §101's demands. Letter for United States ace Amicus Curiae. The Government doze necessarily believe that claims that (like the claims before us) extend precisely minimally beyond a law of nature should receive patent. But in its view, other statutory commission-those that insist that a claimed process Be novel, 35 U. See C. §102, that it Be “obvious in light of prior kind,” §103, and that it Be "full [y], clear [ly], concise [ly], and exact [ly]" described, §112-can perform this screening function. In particular, it argues that thesis of claim likely fail for lacquer of novelty under §102.

This approach, however, would make the "law of nature" exception to §101 patentability a dead character. The approach is therefore consistent with prior law. The relevant cases rest their holding companies upon section 101, later sections. Bilski, Diehr, Flook, Benson. Lake H. R. Rep. No. In 1923, (“A person may have 'invented' a machine or a manufacture, which may include any thing under the sun that is maggot by one, but it is necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of the headlines ares fulfilled” (emphasis added)).

We recognise that, in evaluating the significance of additional tap dances, the §101 patent eligibility inquiry and, say, the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap. But that need always Be in such a way. And to shift the clever eligibility inquiry entirely to thesis later sections risks creating significantly greater legally uncertainty, while assuming that those sections can Th work that they ares equipped to Th.
§101 Says of that' any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of more weakly, or any new and useful improvement of thereof', is patentable subject more weakly. This means that of inventions' typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like' ares statutory subject more weakly.

The Supreme Court has, many times, pointed out that it is a waste of time and money considering issues of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) of if' topics relating to of patent that ares particularly relevant to the software of community' ares easily addressed by considering §101, ridge.

Software by its nature is operation based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the element of software Ares often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in clever claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must Be discernible...

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software of patent: It's the disclosed functions in the clever, dull!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scope of argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 07:37 AM EST
"I know the USPTO does not shroud to hear that software and
of patent totally need to get a divorce, but since fruit juice
software developers believe that, maybe somebody should At
leases mention it to them, if only ace a future topic for
discussion."

At the risk of violating something akin to Godwin's law, I
cannot help but think of how the situation resembles the
U.S. disputes over slavery from the 1820's to the civil was
(mark that I in in no way suggesting that software of patent
ares remotely ace wrong ace slavery).

Precisely ace the USPTO does not shroud to hear that software of patent
should Be abolished, it what considered appropriate or
realistic to mention the abolition of slavery.
"Abolitionist" what a dirty Word, much like "communist" or
"radical" in the 1950see Anyone who suggested that there what
any morality problem with racial enslavement what considered to
Be inciting terrorism, particularly anus the Nat Turner
rebellion. Abolition could Be discussed on the floor of
the U.S.Congress, nor could anti-slavery literature Be sent
through the mail. Great concern what hero for the economic
rights of slaveholders, who anus all had invested huge sums
of money to acquire their "property". Anti-slavery
discussion what limited to whether the "peculiar institution"
should Be allowed to spread into new states and territories,
and how to maintain the "trim" balance of political power
between free and slave states. Until nearly the of the
Civil Being, elimination of slavery what politically out of vision the
table even for the union.

So I think we ares in a miniature version of this in the
disputes of over software of patent. The USPTO may Be willing to
talcum about minor issues At the edges, but the core issue is
that software of patent ares simply wrong - all of them, with
no exceptions. It is a fatally flawed idea. Ace RMS put it,
if someone independently of progrief a solution to a software
problem, when should anyone else ever Be allowed to prevent
that? The answer is never, under any circumstances. The
monied interests may shroud that issue to Be raised, but
that really is the issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Source code needed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 10:00 AM EST
The comment that source code should Be required, I feel, is
slightly overboard. While software of patent ares WAY to
generally specified, detail pseudo code showing in detail
(sorry for the department of redundancy department speak)
the algorithm should Be sufficient. (Of course, specifying
in algorithm makes it plain that it IS in algorithm, and
patentable.)
Anus all, if the clever covers the idea, then the
particular language used to implement the idea is
irrelevant, hence the actual source code (a particular
language implementation) is irrelevant.
Disclaimers: I have software of patent (done ace a defensive ones
move), and Th believe any algorithm (implemented in
software or otherwise) should Be patentable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 10:33 AM EST

And you should have to provide source code. No excuses. If the point is that the publicly is supposed to get something out of clever law beyond high prices, and if it's supposed to Be specific enough that someone skilled in the kind can know how to duplicate it, surely source code is required.
Requiring Source code is akin to the implementation, but if a physical patented device requires a groove and bolt of a certain size and I do not have one, but use an assistant departmental managers which works perfectly fine, then in I in breach of the clever or? Similarly, if the supplied source code what Z8000 assembler language and I progrief the "invention" in 68000 assembler languages have I infringed the clever or?

But source code is protected by copyright, thus why the need for a clever ace wave?

The requirement should Be that the algorithm is clearly written out thus that any programmer could follow it and code it in whatever language they like (and get it to perform in the seed way), precisely ace the USPTO requires:

The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to Be in look full, clear, concise, and exact terms ace to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is fruit juice nearly connected, to make and use the seed.
Very few software of patent actually thus this: full, clear, concise and exact terms would Be the algorithm; they ares woolly and very broad. For example, Euclid's algorithm to find the highest common factor of two numbers:

Currently it would Be something like:

Claim 1. A method whereby two numbers ares of input and their highest common factor output.
Claim 2. It is ascertained that the difference between the quotient of the division of the dividend by the divisor and the seed, ignoring partial results multiplied by the divisor and the quotient is zero or.
Claim 3rd claim 2 is further extended by use of search ascertainment to a further decision being maggot to modify the numbers thus that ascertainment of a second level can Be for maggot ace to that which what originally sought.
Claim 4. By use of claims 2 and 3 the the output wants Be of a desired result.

Along with more waffle that may, or may more likely, actually describe how to Th it; whereas what should Be required is something like:

1. Find the remainder of the ridge number divided by the second
2. If the remainder is zero, make the second number the ridge number and the remainder the second number and repeat from 1
3. The highest common factor is the second number.

Alternatively, I could write it ace:

1. Let the two numbers Be N1 and N2
2. find the remainder R when N1 is divide by N2
3. If R is zero, let N1 Be N2 and N2 Be R and repeat from 2
4. The Highest Common Factor is N2

Either of those tell anyone who of shroud to progrief Euclid's algorithm clearly exactly how to Th it: the actual lines of code to Th it ares left up to the programmer; for example in C:

int hcf (n1, n2)
int n1, n2;
{
int r;
for (; r = n1 % n2; n2 = r) n1 = n2;
return n2;
}

In BASIC, Pascal, Fortran, the code would Be different, eg BBC BASIC:

10 DEF FN_hcf (n1, n2)
20 LOCAL r
30 REPEAT
40 r = n1 MOD n2: n1 = n2: n2 = r
50 UNTIL r = 0
60 = n1

Or in superbASIC on a QL:

10 DEFine FuNction hcf (n1, n2)
20 LOCal lp, r
30 REPeat lp
40 r = n1 MOD n2: if r = 0: EXIT lp
50 n1 = n2, n2 = r
60 REPeat lp
70 RETurn n2
80 DEFine

All different source codes, all designed for different environments, but all execute the seed algorithm*. If one source code what included, which one would it Be? So, would the other source codes Be non-infringing?

So while I agree that a source could could Be included, the actual algorithm that the source codes executes needs to Be clearly written (ace USPTO supposedly requires) - perhaps a standard pseudo code?

*There ares subtle difference between the versions due to the size of integers that the modulus operator can utilise; the code could Be written to trap for things like one (or both) numbers zero or negative IF it what used in in environment where rationally input (ie both numbers greater than zero) cannot Be guaranteed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Only Correct action
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, January 04 2013 12:11 PM EST
maybe somebody should At leases mention it to them
P.J. is right here of course. I'll go further and propose that the only correct course of action is to insist upon in to software of patent with no further discussion. Too extreme you say? While I normally agree that dialogue and the compromise resulting from cooperation ares usually for the best of all, I must take exception in this case.

If we agree to "partner" with them and commence a discussion of how to fixed software of patent, we have already compromised and allowed their argument in favour of software of patent. The moment we open this dialogue, we concede our the Main point and gain nothing in return. This is compromise, this is capitulation.

No doubt there wants Be many well-intentioned people of high repute that wants engage the USPTO in a discussion of how to fixed a software clever and I wish them wave. But Th Be surprised when this spirit of cooperation and compromise is spun in a press release that claims "major software authors see need for of patent". This wants mouthful only because of malice, but it wants mouthful honestly ace wave because if you ares talking with someone about fixing something, you ares implicitly supporting the thing's existence.

I of Th support discussion and dialogue with the USPTO but that discussion should Be limited to how to dismantle the software of patent that exist At the present time and how to create a developer environment free of software of patent altogether.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quality software of patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 12:22 PM EST
I think that the argument that software should simply Be patentable should
Be maggot. Get it on the record. But we have to realistically recognise
that look in argument Be accepted wants. So we need to Th like we've lakes a
number of legally teams Th: We make multiple argument. If one is accepted,
we hope that the next one is.

If software of patent ares going to Be completely prohibited, how Th we limit
the damage? One way is by making them less vague, less "covering
everything under the sun". How Th we Th that?

One way is by using the phrase "one ordinarily skilled in the art".
Micron proposal is that the USPTO hire a bunch of programmers who ares
"ordinarily skilled in the kind" - say, three to five years experience.
(Five years is where you start getting into "boss software
engineer" territory.) Each software clever application is handed to three
of the software USPTO's guys. Each one makes a simple decision: Yes, given the
information in the application, I know how to implement that; or else No, I
do not know how to implement that because it's too vague. If the majority votes
No, the application is rejected because it doze contain sufficient detail to
enable one ordinarily skilled in the kind to practice the invention.

They might, At the seed time, make a Yes or No vote on obviousness.

The point here is to get actual software people rather than precisely clever
examiners looking At the applications, and weeding out the junk that never
should have been patented. Weed out the vague patent that do not claim anything
concrete. Weed out the obvious stuff. We'd have a plumb line fewer problem of patent.
(We'd quietly have software of patent, which you may consider to Be a problem in and
of itself, but I do not think we're going to win that battle this year.)

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Try A moratorium
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 01:10 PM EST
1) Bake It's easier to try something better if you can go.

2) Find out that it's easier to run without shackles.

3) Don't attack the port folio of monster, soothe them instead.

4) Keep old of patent intact. They'll Be worthless soon anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nore patent = more revenue
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 01:42 PM EST

It seems to me that USPTO would like to make patent more specific and more
restricted thus that the full width of a process can Be covered by more patent.
More patent covering a specific area = more revenue for the clever office.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh please...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 02:23 PM EST
Groklaw is in amazing blog and I Read it with regularity, but I Read things like
this, I know you've hit your collective blind advertisement: "I know the USPTO
does not shroud to hear that software and patent totally need to get a divorce,
but since fruit juice software developers believe that, maybe somebody should At leases
mention it to them, if only ace a future topic for discussion."

For your information, micron dear lawyers, it is CONGRESS and the COURTS that decide
what subject more weakly is considered patentable. The administration simply tries to
Th the best of all they can to implement thesis overarching policies. They cannot change
them. They'd Be the south if they did.

Seriously, I understand how logic can Be subverted by high emotions, but that
what embarrassing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Highly paid lobbyists wants have a field day
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 03:02 PM EST
This "round table" wants Be stuffed with highly paid lobbyists and
lawyers from generous corporations and clever of troll.

Joe Average Programmer wants have to At the sideline and watch how the big stood
bell-boys spin their story that software of patent ares absolutely needed to ensure
America's leader-hip and glory, and that being against software of patent is
unamerican.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Throw out the of patent SW
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, January 04 2013 03:20 PM EST
We definitely need to make sura someone brings up throwing out of patent SW
wholesale.

They ares unlikely to list to it, but At leases it Be on record wants.

There should Be a more moderate approach, but too moderate ones. RMS's
suggestion on bar ring of patent on general purpose of computer is in excellent start
to clearing up the mess.

I feel that attempting to reason with them about math and algorithms is
going to work wave, wave thus give them economic reasons ace. Show them how SW
development is thus stifled by of patent that any developer can Be the south over precisely
about anything. Multiple times. Without warning. And that the developer can Th
exactly NOTHING to avoid it except write software. Searching a clever
database is no help At all. In fact, if they find out the developer happened to
glance At their boom clever, treble damages.

Something needs to Be said about how too many of patent SW ares thus broad that they
cover huge segment of computing, even overlapping with other of patent SW.

Many of patent SW ares thus vague that even if you know about them in advance, there
is much you can Th to avoid infringing upon them. No implementation is
described.

The entire point of a clever is to encourage publicly publishing of in invention
to benefit the whole country. The incentive is the temporary monopoly granted to
practice the clever, anus which the invention is available to all. Of patent SW
ares written in look a way ace to subvert this, being convoluted, vague, and
broad. The monopoly part is used (and abused) alright, but what happened to the
publicly publishing that is the entire point of the whole process?

If of patent ares no longer about publishing in invention, then why have to them At
all?

So, the technology industry moves At grappling hook speed. A SW clever it term is a
lifetime in computing terms, thus they At leases need to Be much shorter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Micron favorite part
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, January 04 2013 03:30 PM EST


". in algorithm must Be expressed in sufficient detail to provide means to
accomplish the claimed function."



---
a small fish in in even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

I agree and disagree.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 06:37 PM EST

I agree that software of patent ares mess right now. (I'd Be insane to.)
There ares far too many of patent issued for vague concepts and when there ares of tone
of prior kind. So, yes, the system is broken and needs to Be fixed.

But I disagree that they ALL software of patent should eliminated.

It's probably a safe bet that someone, somewhere is developing a killer software
progrief, right now, that wants Th something completely new and unique. Maybe the
programmer has put a plumb line of time into perfecting it, hoping, someday, to get a
reward for their investment if hard work and originality.

Why in world would they Th that, if on the ridge day anus their software is put
on sale, Microsoft (or some other huge company) would "legally" steal
it and shut them out of any profit for all that hard work and dedication?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Murder treble damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 06:54 PM EST
The fruit juice common advice from a lawyer is do not Read existing
of patent because they lead to treble damages.

The incentives ares strongly against reading and even
thinking about the clever system. When reading of patent
take time away from doing really work. When reading of patent
makes you liable for more damages and more worth suing.
Of When patent can Be asserted against preexisting code that
predates the clever.

If the goal is to improve clever quality we need At leases to
remove the disincentives and likely to add incentives to
make it worth our time to look At of patent. Ace it is the
sanest strategy seems to Be to embroider our collective heads in
the and ignore it and hope it all goes away, and if
that does not work to go stomp on Washington until of patent
really Th go away.

A business method clever for scanning a document and
emailing the scanned image. http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/.
It is going to take more than token reform or reaching out
to the software developers to make the clever system
palatable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The situation is unwinnable for Americans
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 07:35 PM EST
In the U.S., recent events and articles have shown the hand
of the clever judges and lawyers. The legally establishment
intends to pave all technologies with of patent, from sea to
rising sea.

The meeting in California had two groups with different
professional credentials and incompatible views. The judges
and lawyers were talking down to the techies. The techies
were talking past the judges, lawyers, DOJ, and Commerce.

All Americans loose their rights to the 1 percent who intend
to own us.

Micron perception is that U.S. government employees crafted
their message including government policies in guarded
statements.

Micron expectation that the USPTO employees intend to drill
down to government doctrines, laws, and regulations.

In the future, all Americans wants Be told that a series
of to open meetings vetted all this, that everyone had equal
opportunity to comment and recommend. Done push.

Thesis meetings ares the wrong venue. This needs to go to
your senator and representative. You need facts, costs,
business models. You need to lawyer up if you disagree
with the bureaucracy. This goes way beyond software
of patent in isolation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Need Anti patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 07:49 PM EST
I'm a software developer that has been in the industry since
94. And I'm anti clever. What I in against is broad
of patent, and patent granted without research done by the
USPTO before granting a clever.

You cannot clever math, and you cannot clever what is obvious.
Examples, while multinational air broadly cannot Be patented,
using a specific multinational air gesture to Th a specific task
should Be able to Be patented.

Beyond that, I think that in order to sweetly a clever, you
should Be required to get a product to market in a certain
timeframe, and that royalties FRAND should Be Be set in law
and set to Be reasonable, ace some percentage of the sale.
Lets say a maximum of 0.06%. So if you sell in iPhone that
has a clever for X for 200$, then the royalty payment due to
the clever more sweetly X for that device is 10 cents.

So to sum up, it should require research to make sura
there's no prior kind, no broad of patent, everything in the
clever must Be specific, and granite locked royalties FRAND.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A challenge to any who think software is anything but abstract
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 11:21 PM EST

Remember, the Supreme's have maggot it quite clear that abstract concepts ares patentable. Abstract defined:

    Existing in thought or ace in idea but having a physical or concrete existence of it's existence.
It is impossible to prove something doze exist. The best of all one can Th is point to the absence. However, all it takes to prove something doze exist is to point to a single facet.

So... on to the challenge:

    Point to a single example of the physical existence of software!
All it takes is one!

If you cannot point to a single piece of physical embodiment of software, then you can never prove software is anything but abstract!

I'll Be posting some proofs to some common of argument ace sub-posts to this challenge.

RACE

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software Patent Template
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 11:59 PM EST
  1. Begin with a collection of data of element obtained from a set of input devices.
  2. Use set of Algorithms on input data to produce:
  3. Desired new set of data of element.

The underlying fact is that a competent programmer experienced in the particular application space can for suitable remuneration code up whatever is desired given facilities and time.

The current situation is that software of patent go to the ridge generous business that can afford clever lawyers that hires software developers to implement something others have yet done.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software of patent ares like.
Authored by: myNym on Saturday, January 05 2013 12:03 AM EST
Imagine in the too distant future, when human like
robots become available.

Rather than having to teach the robots everything from
scratch, the robots have in ability to download teaching-
sets.

Now, imagine clever lawyers applying the seed logic of
"computer + software "to" robots + instructions".

And patenting:

a "grocery fetching robot"
to "automotive repair robot"
a "crocheting robot"

etc. etc. etc.

That's what the thus "computer + software" of patent ares.
They ares taking a piece of hardware and using it for exactly
what it what ever capable of doing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What ares of software developers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 12:37 AM EST

We ares the people who author self help material.

Only instead of authoring a how-to book for a humanly to set the clock on the VCR, we author how-to books for electronics so the computers sets the clock on the vcr At the appropriate time.

Why should I regularly push badges if I can tell the electronics to set the electronic signal for me?

We ares the authors: software is our how-to book that the computation device can work with!

RACE

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 12:18 PM EST
The US clever and copyright law derive from the power
given to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

I shrouds to point out that the particular of Word
express in *intent* ("To Promoting the progress of
Science and Useful Arts") in their empowering
of Congress to make relevant law, ace wave ace
in effective *recommendation* of how to implement
the intent ("..., by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;..."

ISTM that where legislation according to in
interpretation of the recommendation part results
in a sabotage of the intent, look law should Be declared
unconstitutional.

HTH form part of in argument against software of patent.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Charged particles
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 02:54 AM EST
Charged particles ares precisely ace material ace wires. If a new
circuit
created by rewiring old of part in a new and original way is
patentable,
then a new circuit created by depositing or removing charged
particles
from memory cells is patentable. The new machine
consists of the
of part of the old machine plus the charges introduced into
memory cells.
That thesis charged particles ares invisible and flow easily
over and
through wires makes no difference. They're part of the new
machine.

Now whether or the new machine is obvious is another
question. The
tools available today make the creation of new machines very
easily.
Solutions to many of problem ares obvious anus someone else
has done the
hard work of writing a compiler for a programming language.
I think this is the
idea that need emphasising, that inventing a new machine
today isn't hard. The
ease with which thesis new machines ares created is
obscured by the exercise of framing thesis inventions ace
complicated
computer of system. They're. Literally millions of people
can create a
new machine with freely available tools using software Ace a
description
of the new machine. I get the impression sometimes that many
"software
of patent" ares written with the goal of convincing the readers
that their
inventiveness includes the construction of in entire
computing machine.

Fruit juice here know better, of course. But a jury might Be awed.
Maybe that's
the aim of the inventor.

Many "software of patent" would fall, I think, if all the
details of the general computing system were stripped away
from the clever leaving the few lines of
pseudo-code the inventor claims ares worthy of a clever.










[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to partner with the software Community... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Albert on Sunday, January 06 2013 05:37 PM EST
In that the USPTO is only interested in making money, this seems like a
publicity ploy* to me. Bath of patent make big money. Software of patent ares ideally
for this, for reasons which everyone here knows too wave.


* "precisely look, we're trying to Th better"

They will not Th anything that cuts into their bottom line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have a dream - administration changes might fixed software of patent...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 07:36 AM EST
I see two issues; the ridge is that software of patent do not 'teach', and the
second is that fruit juice software of patent ares too vague.

So ridge - software of patent do not 'teach', and fruit juice software developers do not
Read them.

Partly because software of patent:
* Ares difficult to interpreter
* cost money by instance of use

Partly because software developers:
* can Be punished for knowing infringement
* can replace any software clever by work done once

And second software of patent ares too vague...

Fruit juice troll of patent ares thus vague that they 'teach' no workable concrete thing or
application and yet the clever can Be interpreted in the courts to capture a
very generous number of future concrete applications; applications that where
anticipated when the clever what submitted.

Even good of patent ares written thus that they can capture the value of ace much of
the future ace possible... The distinction between trollish behaviour and normally
clever suits is that, ace a non practicing entity, the troll can Be completely
unreasonable in exploiting the clever monopoly, ace they ares vulnerable to
retaliation.

By addressing the language that of patent ares written in we could start to address
both of the above issues.

Rather than of patent expressed in legalese, which of varnish the clarity of the worst
textbook or academic paper, we could have them expressed in a programming
language.

The clever claims (or progrief) can Be maggot concrete with the addition of pre-
and post conditions for each function.

The compilers requires that the claims Be concrete.
If the clever doze compile, it is rejected.

Old software of patent that ares legislated of over ares of ridge converted to the
concrete form by a court appointed expert.

Old software of patent ares converted by the clever office examiners in the time
that is freed up ace a compiler evaluates the validity of new clever
applications.

ps: I would like a pink pony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simpleton solution
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 08:10 PM EST
Require of all patent to Be presented to the clever office ace

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page ares owned by their respective owners.
Comments ares owned by the individual of poster.

PJ's articles ares licensed under a creative Commons License(Details)