Author Archives: Ciaran

MPEG LA’s attack on VP8 video highlights need for software patent abolition

MPEG LA is blatantly trying to claim a monopoly on online video. The patent system is failing for software, and initiatives to “fix” the system are not working. A clear exclusion of software ideas from patentability is the only workable solution.

VP8 is an attempt to free the software industry and all software developers from this patent troll. MPEG LA did not develop VP8 but it wants to own it nonetheless.

Continue reading

[USA] Patent Reform is not enough, software patents must be abolished

The US Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill on “patent reform” will not address the main patent problems of software developers.

The bill takes aim at a problem experienced by a small number of large companies, namely, the problem of patent trolls litigating in the hope of a pay-out at the end of a long legal process. Ironically, many of the large companies that will benefit from this bill are the cause of the real patent problems for software developers.

Continue reading

USPTO weakens obviousness requirements

(Temporary note: For statements supporting this article’s title, see en.swpat.org/wiki/raising_standards…)

The below text is a notice from the USPTO about tests they’re removing in order to make it less difficult to pass the test for obviousness. Low obviousness standards (silly patents) is not the mains cause of problems, but it aggravates already-problematic domains such as software patents.

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

Continue reading

Canadian appeal court says 1-click patentable

Canada’s Federal Court (FCAFC) has ruled that Amazon’s 1-click shopping patent describes patentable subject matter. Amazon’s patent was rejected last year by the Canadian Patent Appeal Board on grounds that business methods are not patentable subject matter, but that rejection has been thrown out by the Federal Court.

Analysis of the court’s decision can be found on en.swpat.org:

ESP responds to USPTO consultation

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

Continue reading

USPTO interim guidelines request for comment – as text

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

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

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

Continue reading

USPTO’s 101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet – as text

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

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

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

Continue reading

Bilski’s patent application – the published parts

Some people have asked where they can read the patent which was the object of Bilski v. Kappos. The answer is that it’s a patent application and as such it’s confidential. However, the key excerpts did get published via the opinions of the various courts which rejected it. Keep in mind that the application may have been modified since its filing in 2006, and the authors have expressed their intention to modify it and try again to get it granted. With that said, below is the text we know of.
[UPDATE: We have almost the full text, thanks to contributor Gibus]

Continue reading

Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?

Everyone expects the US Supreme Court to publish their decision on the "Bilski" case today (June 28th 2010). The court has to decide on the validity of a patent on a business method, but that’s not the main issue. Everyone expects that patent to be rejected, but the main issue is that to reject a patent the court must give a general test and explain why this patent fails that test. We want to know if they’ll propose a test which will also be failed by some or all software patents.

Continue reading

No Bilski; last possible date: Monday 28th

No Bilski today. The only date left on the calendar for announcing decisions is Monday June 28th. The court confirmed today that Monday will be the last day for announcing decisions, so either we get Bilski then, or there’s a very remote possibility that they will hold Bilski until the new term after the Summer. Background on this case can be found at en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski v. Kappos.

New Zealand software patents victory crumbling

NZICT (who’s NZICT?) reports that they convinced the politician in charge of the Patents Bill, Hon Simon Power, to do a u-turn and open the floodgates for software patents. The report was posted on a patent lawyer’s blog, then deleted, but copies have been mirrored:

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

Continue reading