Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Creative Commons Starts Addressing Patents

  • Subject: [News] Creative Commons Starts Addressing Patents
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:26:19 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

Stop Wasting Money On Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Patent law is currently broken. Especially 
| software patent law. A pending Supreme Court 
| case (Google Bilski for more info) may fix it 
| or make further break it. In short, you can 
| expect to pay more for, wait longer for, and 
| get less from your patents than you would have 
| 5 or 10 years ago.


Launching Public Discussion of CC Patent Tools

,----[ Quote ]
| Weâre happy to announce that weâre launching 
| the public comment and discussion period for 
| our new patent tools: the Research Non-
| Assertion Pledge and the Public Patent 
| License. We invite you to join the discussion 
| at our public wiki. There you can read about 
| these tools, catch up on hot topics of 
| interest to the community, or join our public 
| discussion list to contribute your thoughts 
| and suggestions. 



Gene patenting and free software: a breakthrough

,----[ Quote ]
| In reaching his legal conclusions, Judge
| Sweet relied significantly on the recent
| opinion of the Court of Appeals for the
| Federal Circuit, which has primary
| responsibility for interpreting the
| nation's patent law, In re Bilski, 535 F.3d
| 943 (2008), now pending in the Supreme
| Court.  Bilski, as readers here will know,
| raises issues concerning the patentability
| of business methods and computer software,
| on essentially the same basic ground: that,
| as the Supreme Court has said, "phenomena
| of nature, though just discovered, mental
| processes, and abstract intellectual
| concepts are not patentable, as they are
| the basic tools of scientific and
| technological work." Gottschalk v. Benson,
| 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972).  Judge Sweet's
| opinion may be said to raise the stakes on
| Bilski slightly, but the parts of the
| Federal Circuit opinion on which Judge
| Sweet relies are not about the "specialized
| machine or transformation of matter" test
| adopted by the Federal Circuit to
| distinguish patentable from unpatentable
| inventions involving computer software and
| methods of doing business.  Judge Sweet
| followed the Federal Circuit closely in its
| expression of the settled law of patent
| scope, making it more unlikely that the
| Federal Circuit, which will hear the
| inevitable appeal from Judge Sweet's
| judgment, will be inclined to disturb the
| conclusion.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index