Comments for End Software Patents http://endsoftpatents.org Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:07:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 Comment on Australian petition needs signatures against swpats by Andy Jordan http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/oz-petition-needs-signatures/#comment-5004 Andy Jordan Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:07:43 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=575#comment-5004 No Software Patents

]]> Comment on Bilski’s patent application – the published parts by Gibus http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/bilskis-patent-application-the-published-parts/#comment-4950 Gibus Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:40:44 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=555#comment-4950 I’ve just posted on wiki discussion page (http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Talk:Bilski%27s_patent_application_text) a link to a PDF with some more claims (1-9, see PDF P. 88): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/2007-1130bilski_joint_appendix.pdf

]]> Comment on New Zealand returns to abolition of software patents by Ciaran http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/new-zealand-returns-to-abolition-of-software-patents/#comment-4949 Ciaran Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:43:27 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=568#comment-4949 The embedded software part could be hiding some danger, but I don’t think it spoils the general position that I quoted.

A new microwave with software in it is an invention with embedded software. If the microwave company wants to patent their new microwave, that’s fine with us.

The pro-swpat companies are very clever, so we’ll have to stay involved to ensure that the bill doesn’t get spoiled, but this is definitely winnable.

]]> Comment on New Zealand returns to abolition of software patents by Dan http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/new-zealand-returns-to-abolition-of-software-patents/#comment-4948 Dan Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:17:45 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=568#comment-4948 “New Zealand’s government has announced that they will not further modify their proposed bill and that they still agree with those “opposing the granting of patents for computer programs on the grounds it would stifle innovation and restrict competition.” (Background: New Zealand)”

When you use quotes like that, the implication is that the quote appears in the statement you linked to. But it doesn’t, and actually says the opposite: “Minister announces way forward for software patents
Commerce Minister Simon Power has instructed the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to develop guidelines to allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented.”

]]> Comment on Bilski’s patent application – the published parts by Ciaran http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/bilskis-patent-application-the-published-parts/#comment-4946 Ciaran Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:17:42 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=555#comment-4946 Thanks for the pointers about the secrecy rule change; it’s something I plan to look into. I heard the League for Programming Freedom played a key rule in getting that rule changed, but I’ve no evidence to back that up. I guess I’ll document it here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Legislation_in_the_USA

That’s funny about the google link. The “&dq=08/833,892″ has nothing to do with the page content, it just tells google.com to put “08/833,892″ in the search box. I’ll have to watch out for that.

So this url also works (if someone wants to link to that other patent):
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JgOGAAAAEBAJ

]]> Comment on Bilski’s patent application – the published parts by les http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/bilskis-patent-application-the-published-parts/#comment-4945 les Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:49:48 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=555#comment-4945 ooops, I take it back, that is another application by Bilski et al. I believe 08/833,892 was filed before the rule change and so, may still be confidential.

]]> Comment on Bilski’s patent application – the published parts by les http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/07/bilskis-patent-application-the-published-parts/#comment-4944 les Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:53 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=555#comment-4944 Since about 2000 (maybe a year or two later) U.S. Patent applications have only been held confidential for 18 months, after that, they are published. Application no. 08/833,892 is available here:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JgOGAAAAEBAJ&dq=08/833,892

]]> Comment on Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway? by Ciaran http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/06/late-comers-guide-what-is-bilski-anyway/#comment-4941 Ciaran Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:59:32 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=528#comment-4941 I’ve documented what’s available here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski%27s_patent

]]> Comment on Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway? by Ciaran http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/06/late-comers-guide-what-is-bilski-anyway/#comment-4539 Ciaran Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:38:14 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=528#comment-4539 I’ll try to collect some details.

One limit is that the patent application has never been published. That’s part of the US patent system, applications remain secret for at least 1.5 years.

In general it was the idea of “hedging”, in the financial world. The important part of the application is claims 1-4. Claim #1 is shown on page 2 (which is PDF page 6) of the Supreme Court’s decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

]]> Comment on Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway? by hey http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/06/late-comers-guide-what-is-bilski-anyway/#comment-4537 hey Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:33:08 +0000 http://news.swpat.org/?p=528#comment-4537 So are any of these background pages ever going to explain what the patent was *for*?

]]>