Slashdot Mirror

AV is really the area worst affected by software patents. The media talks a lot about "silly patents", but they're *not* the real problem. MPEG-LA holds over 1000 patents - no amount of raised standards will solve this problem. Patents on playing video have to be declared null and void.

• On2 VP8
• MPEG video formats
• Audio-video patents
• Harm to standards

AV is really the area worst affected by software patents. The media talks a lot about "silly patents", but they're *not* the real problem. MPEG-LA holds over 1000 patents - no amount of raised standards will solve this problem. Patents on playing video have to be declared null and void.

• On2 VP8
• MPEG video formats
• Audio-video patents
• Harm to standards

AV is really the area worst affected by software patents. The media talks a lot about "silly patents", but they're *not* the real problem. MPEG-LA holds over 1000 patents - no amount of raised standards will solve this problem. Patents on playing video have to be declared null and void.

• On2 VP8
• MPEG video formats
• Audio-video patents
• Harm to standards

AV is really the area worst affected by software patents. The media talks a lot about "silly patents", but they're *not* the real problem. MPEG-LA holds over 1000 patents - no amount of raised standards will solve this problem. Patents on playing video have to be declared null and void.

• On2 VP8
• MPEG video formats
• Audio-video patents
• Harm to standards

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Do you have a copy of the FAT jugement in Germany?

There's a link here.

I'm working on documenting this, and the general German situation, here:

• Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany) (that's this case)
• German patent courts and appeals
• Case law in Germany

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

I'm working on documenting this, and the general German situation, here:

• Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany) (that's this case)
• German patent courts and appeals
• Case law in Germany

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

I'm working on documenting this, and the general German situation, here:

• Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany) (that's this case)
• German patent courts and appeals
• Case law in Germany

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

I html-ised it and made links to a few automatic translations:

• http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/german-court-ruling-upholding-siemens-patent-as-text/

It indeed looks like bad news.

Having a patent doesnt do anything by itself, it gives the holder of the patent specific options.

Specific options that I don't want anyone to have over me; options they won't have if I don't encode anything with H.264.

Let me ask you, how many people has the MPEG-LA sued over h264 ... there are OSS implementations ... how many of them have been sued?

I don't trust the MPEG-LA. Past performance is no guarantee. Frankly, if their US licensees have any inkling that x264 is cutting into their profits, as publicly traded corporations they are legally obligated to push the MPEG-LA to enforce those patents anywhere they are valid. Apple and Microsoft both qualify. They have a legal obligation to their stockholders to push H.264 over Theora since they get money whenever a H.264 encoder or decoder is sold.

I suppose the fact that Novell, Redhat and Canonical all are patent holders just slipped your fucking mind too right?

Redhat grants use of their patents.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/ccmpl.html

2. GRANT OF RIGHTS

a. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non exclusive, worldwide, royalty free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,publicly display, publicly perform and distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form.

b. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non exclusive, worldwide, royalty free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form. This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution. No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.

Novell licenses their contributions under the GPL version 2 (they are still carrying notices to this effect, not difficult to locate.) It does not permit redistribution if patent claims prevent it. Novell cannot simultaneously distribute Linux and make patent claims against it.

The Canonical contributor agreement requires that you promise that no patent claims will come from your contributions to canonical, and they make the same promise back to you. Further, Canonical submitted a letter to the European Patent Office arguing against the granting of software patents for EPO EBA referral G3-08.

Or, in short, you are using three companies which have promised not to sue over software patents in comparison to a group which exists specifically to handle licensing and lawsuits of a group of patents encumbering a supposed standard. This is so wrongheaded I just can't even begin to figure out where you're coming from.

It's strange that companies actually went for litigation. Maybe it happened because this new field brought companies into competition with other companies tehy hadn't dealt with before, so the usual deals of paying patent tax to each other couldn't be set up fast enough.

• Phone patent litigation
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
• Court cases and lawsuits
• Patent non-aggression pacts

It's strange that companies actually went for litigation. Maybe it happened because this new field brought companies into competition with other companies tehy hadn't dealt with before, so the usual deals of paying patent tax to each other couldn't be set up fast enough.

• Phone patent litigation
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
• Court cases and lawsuits
• Patent non-aggression pacts

It's strange that companies actually went for litigation. Maybe it happened because this new field brought companies into competition with other companies tehy hadn't dealt with before, so the usual deals of paying patent tax to each other couldn't be set up fast enough.

• Phone patent litigation
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
• Court cases and lawsuits
• Patent non-aggression pacts

It's strange that companies actually went for litigation. Maybe it happened because this new field brought companies into competition with other companies tehy hadn't dealt with before, so the usual deals of paying patent tax to each other couldn't be set up fast enough.

• Phone patent litigation
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
• Court cases and lawsuits
• Patent non-aggression pacts

It's strange that companies actually went for litigation. Maybe it happened because this new field brought companies into competition with other companies tehy hadn't dealt with before, so the usual deals of paying patent tax to each other couldn't be set up fast enough.

• Phone patent litigation
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
• Court cases and lawsuits
• Patent non-aggression pacts

    The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

nothing in patents but a denial of democracy.. and the recreation of the feudal system.

    The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

nothing in patents but a denial of democracy.. and the recreation of the feudal system.

    The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

nothing in patents but a denial of democracy.. and the recreation of the feudal system.

    The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

nothing in patents but a denial of democracy.. and the recreation of the feudal system.

Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money. Trolls have nothing to do with HTML5 not being able to recommend a video codec, and they've nothing to do with worries about how Microsoft will use their patents on .doc, XML, or Mono. Some trolls *do* practice their invention, like the mp3 guys that made a packet from trolling - and as a side-effect, completely insignificant to them, forced GNU/Linux distros to omit mp3 support.

To solve the social problems caused by software patents, we have to abolish them - tweaking the numbers to reduce the problems of mega corporations is not *our* job.

• Patent trolls
• Harm with neither litigation nor threats
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)

Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money. Trolls have nothing to do with HTML5 not being able to recommend a video codec, and they've nothing to do with worries about how Microsoft will use their patents on .doc, XML, or Mono. Some trolls *do* practice their invention, like the mp3 guys that made a packet from trolling - and as a side-effect, completely insignificant to them, forced GNU/Linux distros to omit mp3 support.

To solve the social problems caused by software patents, we have to abolish them - tweaking the numbers to reduce the problems of mega corporations is not *our* job.

• Patent trolls
• Harm with neither litigation nor threats
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)

Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money. Trolls have nothing to do with HTML5 not being able to recommend a video codec, and they've nothing to do with worries about how Microsoft will use their patents on .doc, XML, or Mono. Some trolls *do* practice their invention, like the mp3 guys that made a packet from trolling - and as a side-effect, completely insignificant to them, forced GNU/Linux distros to omit mp3 support.

To solve the social problems caused by software patents, we have to abolish them - tweaking the numbers to reduce the problems of mega corporations is not *our* job.

• Patent trolls
• Harm with neither litigation nor threats
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)

> The EU threw out patents on software /per se/

What makes you say that? The background was that the legislation excludes "swpats as such", and the EPO interprets so narrowly to be almost non-existant. The story with the EU is that the Commission proposed to clearly allow software patents, and it was discussed at great volume levels for a few years, and the Parliament threw out the Commission's proposal almost unanimously.

This means there was no change in the legislation, so were back to the crappy situation where the EPO is granting whatever it likes, but it's still true that the Parliament's action was to throw out a proposal to legitimatise software patents. Here's the story at greater length:

• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• EU software patents directive

> The EU threw out patents on software /per se/

What makes you say that? The background was that the legislation excludes "swpats as such", and the EPO interprets so narrowly to be almost non-existant. The story with the EU is that the Commission proposed to clearly allow software patents, and it was discussed at great volume levels for a few years, and the Parliament threw out the Commission's proposal almost unanimously.

This means there was no change in the legislation, so were back to the crappy situation where the EPO is granting whatever it likes, but it's still true that the Parliament's action was to throw out a proposal to legitimatise software patents. Here's the story at greater length:

• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• EU software patents directive

The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

The United Patent Litigation System replaces the EPLA. The official justifications are that it will decrease bureaucracy and costs. As a side effect (which is the real motivation of some pushers), it will push aside the European Parliament (which threw out swpats in 2005), and give more power to the European Patent Office (which approves almost as much as the USPTO does). More details:

• United Patent Litigation System
• European Patent Litigation Agreement
• Software patents exist in Europe, mostly
• European Patent Office grants software patents

The USA has no law on software patents. The relevant law was written before anyone was manufacturing computers: Legislation in the USA

Kagan: Hey, Barack. This software patent's issue is a real head scratcher. I can't find your stance on it. Can you remind me of it?

Obama: Elena, Elena, I'm busy. To be a patentable process, innovations should involve significant extra-solution activity i.e. activity central to the purpose of the claimed method. And don't forget that no patent can wholly pre-empt the use of a fundamental principle - and I don't just mean that a field-of-use restriction will suffice, I want to be sure that the algorithm can still be used for other purposes even in that same field.

Kagan: Thanks, I'll go fluff that out and add references. (done) Sorry to have bothered you, I simply don't have the power to come up with my own viewpoints, so I wanted to clarfy what yours are.

(...or just maybe it's not a purely clerical role and there's a bit of Kagan in the document she wrote and got approved by the president.)

Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:

No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;

• Obama administration#2009 Bilski brief
• Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)
• US Supreme Court

Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:

No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;

• Obama administration#2009 Bilski brief
• Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)
• US Supreme Court

Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:

No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;

• Obama administration#2009 Bilski brief
• Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)
• US Supreme Court

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they romote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Twenty years ago Harvard released dozens of studies showing the dangers of Caffeine and now Science is back with a new spin. Spare me the ``all the studies'' crap.

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they romote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Twenty years ago Harvard released dozens of studies showing the dangers of Caffeine and now Science is back with a new spin. Spare me the ``all the studies'' crap.

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they romote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Twenty years ago Harvard released dozens of studies showing the dangers of Caffeine and now Science is back with a new spin. Spare me the ``all the studies'' crap.

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they romote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Twenty years ago Harvard released dozens of studies showing the dangers of Caffeine and now Science is back with a new spin. Spare me the ``all the studies'' crap.

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.

A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.

Related info on en.swpat.org:

• Legislation in the USA
• Interoperability exceptions
• MPEG video formats (including h.264)
• Harm to standards

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_pools

Video is, IMO, the area where software patents are doing the most harm, and the problem won't be solved by the anti-troll projects, and it won't be solved by raising examination standards. H.264 is covered by 900 patents. The only way to make it patent free is to abolish software patents.

• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• HTML5 and video patents
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas
• Ogg Theora

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Video is, IMO, the area where software patents are doing the most harm, and the problem won't be solved by the anti-troll projects, and it won't be solved by raising examination standards. H.264 is covered by 900 patents. The only way to make it patent free is to abolish software patents.

• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• HTML5 and video patents
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas
• Ogg Theora

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Video is, IMO, the area where software patents are doing the most harm, and the problem won't be solved by the anti-troll projects, and it won't be solved by raising examination standards. H.264 is covered by 900 patents. The only way to make it patent free is to abolish software patents.

• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• HTML5 and video patents
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas
• Ogg Theora

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.