Slashdot Mirror

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.

I hope this doesn't overshadow the upcoming legislative changes regarding software patents. There's pretty much no activism on this right now:

• Australia: legislation still coming - news article
• Australia@en.swpat.org - main Australia wiki page

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

I hope this doesn't overshadow the upcoming legislative changes regarding software patents. There's pretty much no activism on this right now:

• Australia: legislation still coming - news article
• Australia@en.swpat.org - main Australia wiki page

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

I should have also mentioned this page :

• Software distributors paying Microsoft patent tax

I'm a bit behind on documenting this on en.swpat.org. If anyone can get it started, all help is welcome. In the mean time, here's the info I have on closely related topics :

• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Microsoft
• Google

I'm a bit behind on documenting this on en.swpat.org. If anyone can get it started, all help is welcome. In the mean time, here's the info I have on closely related topics :

• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Microsoft
• Google

I'm a bit behind on documenting this on en.swpat.org. If anyone can get it started, all help is welcome. In the mean time, here's the info I have on closely related topics :

• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
• Microsoft
• Google

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

• news.swpat.org: ACTA draft text officially released

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
• ACTA and software patents
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

• news.swpat.org: ACTA draft text officially released

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
• ACTA and software patents
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

• news.swpat.org: ACTA draft text officially released

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
• ACTA and software patents
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

• news.swpat.org: ACTA draft text officially released

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
• ACTA and software patents
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

• news.swpat.org: ACTA draft text officially released

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
• ACTA and software patents
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.

It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.

• Justice Stevens
• US Supreme Court
• Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA)

It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.

• Justice Stevens
• US Supreme Court
• Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA)

It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.

• Justice Stevens
• US Supreme Court
• Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA)

Your first para: Yes, they might throw out Bilski and cancel the CAFC's test (which throws out certain software patents) but that's *not* the same as saying that software patents are valid. They could just say that the CAFC went beyond the scope of this business method patent case in creating a test that applies also to software.

Second para: note that the "particular" is important. Being tied to a computer is not sufficient. Computers are general. A particular machine would the sewing robot I invented or rubber curing machine I invented.

Third para: Ben Klemens' paper and a heap of studies show that swpats are bad for the economy.

Your first para: Yes, they might throw out Bilski and cancel the CAFC's test (which throws out certain software patents) but that's *not* the same as saying that software patents are valid. They could just say that the CAFC went beyond the scope of this business method patent case in creating a test that applies also to software.

Second para: note that the "particular" is important. Being tied to a computer is not sufficient. Computers are general. A particular machine would the sewing robot I invented or rubber curing machine I invented.

Third para: Ben Klemens' paper and a heap of studies show that swpats are bad for the economy.

I've been documenting the software patents situation for Theora here:

• Ogg Theora
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas

Adding information about On2's v8 codec would be very welcome.

I've been documenting the software patents situation for Theora here:

• Ogg Theora
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas

Adding information about On2's v8 codec would be very welcome.

I've been documenting the software patents situation for Theora here:

• Ogg Theora
• Audio-video patents
• Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas

Adding information about On2's v8 codec would be very welcome.

The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.

The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.

• US Supreme Court
• Particular machine or transformation
• Patent Absurdity

The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.

The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.

• US Supreme Court
• Particular machine or transformation
• Patent Absurdity

The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.

The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.

• US Supreme Court
• Particular machine or transformation
• Patent Absurdity

The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.

The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.

• US Supreme Court
• Particular machine or transformation
• Patent Absurdity

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.

• When to expect Bilski
• Which ways could Bilski go?

This sort of thing was being done even back in 1985, and there are videos to demonstrating it:

• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)#Multi-touch prior art

My interest is in finding prior art to prevent any company from using patents to jam up phone development for the years to come. If anyone else has examples from 1990 or before, please let me know.

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.

The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.

• Ogg Theora
• MPEG video formats
• Harm to standards
• Audio-video patents
• HTML5 and video patents
• Google

Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.

• ACTA overview
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - the big leak, pretty much complete
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - earlier leak, including comments from the EU representative

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.

Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.

• ACTA overview
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - the big leak, pretty much complete
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - earlier leak, including comments from the EU representative

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.

Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.

• ACTA overview
• 201001 acta.pdf as text - the big leak, pretty much complete
• ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - earlier leak, including comments from the EU representative

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.

The patented stuff is the "claims". You'll find them hidden, starting somewhere within a brick of text. Harder to find than the abstract, but they're the thing that count.

• How to read patents
• Silly patents
• IBM

The patented stuff is the "claims". You'll find them hidden, starting somewhere within a brick of text. Harder to find than the abstract, but they're the thing that count.

• How to read patents
• Silly patents
• IBM

The patented stuff is the "claims". You'll find them hidden, starting somewhere within a brick of text. Harder to find than the abstract, but they're the thing that count.

• How to read patents
• Silly patents
• IBM

The first two words of what is claimed:

"A method"

IBM? Fear the soon-to-come decision regarding Bilski vs. Kappos. That is all.

They're as bad as Microsoft:

• IBM
• Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM
• Open Invention Network - this highlights a limit of OIN: OIN doesn't protect you against attacks *from* OIN members

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

They're as bad as Microsoft:

• IBM
• Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM
• Open Invention Network - this highlights a limit of OIN: OIN doesn't protect you against attacks *from* OIN members

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

They're as bad as Microsoft:

• IBM
• Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM
• Open Invention Network - this highlights a limit of OIN: OIN doesn't protect you against attacks *from* OIN members

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

I've gathered some info already about the patent problems that have arrised around the iPad:

• Apple Inc.
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA) (including multi-touch prior art)
• Apple Dock

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