-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Patent applications by Utahns
,----[ Quote ]
| System and method for creating and
| presenting modal dialog boxes in server-
| side component Web applications, patent
| No. 7,721,225, invented by Daniel Montroy
| of Sandy, Micah Gorrell of Spanish Fork,
| and Matthew Sorensen of Lehi, assigned to
| Novell, Inc. of Provo.
`----
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_15110466
Fighting patent aggression the open source way
,----[ Quote ]
| For the open source community, it's worth
| noting with pride that a substantial
| portion of the prior art used in the case
| was identified by community members.
| Groklaw helped rally support, and drew
| many prior art contributions. The Open
| Invention Network's Linux Defenders
| program posted the patents on its Post-
| Issue Peer to Patent page, and drew
| numerous useful contributions as well. In
| fact, all of the prior art used as prime
| examples at trial (Apple Switcher,
| Commodore Amiga 1000, and Chan Room
| Model), were identified on both Groklaw
| and Linux Defenders. Many thanks to all
| who contributed and showed how open source
| can help invalidate patents that should
| never have been granted.
|
| Explaining prior art to a jury is itself
| an art, and our invalidity expert, Dave
| Wilson, did a great job. He was smart and
| engaging, and managed to make some
| challenging material really interesting.
| For those interested in the technical
| details on invalidity, I'm posting his
| entire testimony, but here are a couples
| of excerpts that will give some idea of
| what he did.
`----
http://opensource.com/law/10/5/fighting-patent-aggression-open-source-way
Chien: Recent History Suggests that Supreme Court will Rule Bilski's Claim Unpatentable
,----[ Quote ]
| Professor Colleen Chien (Santa Clara) has
| written an interesting new article on the
| importance of amicus briefs in patent
| cases. Her article is titled Patent Amicus
| Briefs: What the Courts' Friends Can Teach
| Us About the Patent System and is
| available online at SSRN.
|
| [...]
|
| The abstract:
|
| Over the last two decades, more than 1500
| amici, representing thousands of
| organizations, companies, and individuals,
| have signed onto amicus briefs in over a
| hundred patent cases, many of them
| representing landmark decisions. This
| paper turns the spotlight on these
| "behind-the-scenes" actors in the patent
| system. It combines theoretical insights
| with an empirical study of amicus briefs
| filed in patent cases over the last 20
| years in an examination of who is
| interested in the patent system, the
| positions they have advocated, and the
| effectiveness of their advocacy. Amicus
| filers have been instrumental in shaping
| the courts' agenda; the Supreme Court was
| seven times more likely to grant cert, and
| the Federal Circuit eight times likely
| grant a petition for en banc rehearing, if
| urged to by an amicus. However, while
| certain briefs have been important,
| overall the balance of briefs on the
| merits have not had a measurable impact on
| the courts' rulings. One exception has
| been the briefs of the US Government,
| which have been exceptionally prescient.
| Over the 20 years studied, every single
| amicus brief authored by the US Government
| in a Supreme Court patent case except one
| predicted the case outcome. That is to
| say, in almost all cases, the Court
| affirmed or rejected the lower court
| holding when the Government told it to,
| and in one case, dismissed cert as
| improvidently granted when the Government
| recommended doing so. In terms of who
| files briefs and their agenda, the results
| are somewhat surprising. Although debates
| about the patent system are usually cast
| as a fight between the pharmaceutical and
| hi-tech industries, patent lawyers
| comprise a powerful interest group, filing
| the most briefs of any single group. In
| addition, among companies, what seems
| largely to determine how they advocate is
| their business model â non-practicing
| entities, for example, nearly always
| weighed in for the patentee and public
| companies, often against the patentee.
| These and other results have implications
| for those seeking to understand the patent
| system and those seeking to influence it.
`----
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/chien-recent-history-suggests-that-supreme-court-will-rule-bilskis-claim-unpatentable.html
Recent:
Novell - Software Patents = Success
,----[ Quote ]
| I find it hilarious and interesting that
| Novell considers a large number of software
| patents as a good thing. It seems to use
| this as a measure of their success. This is
| against the community belief that software
| patents are bad and immoral. This is a
| dangerous idea when you consider how much
| free and open source software is written by
| Novell. How much software could they force
| us not to use because of patents?
`----
http://www.pwnage.ca/?q=node/12
The Innovative People of Novell
,----[ Quote ]
| Inventive people who write more
| software patents per capita than
| anywhere else.ï
|
| Software patents: A Novell metric for
| success.
`----
http://www.the-source.com/2010/01/the-innovative-people-of-novell/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkv2RFkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7g/ACaAthWhHEOSS6ohWdnzb+szOk7
A/MAnRDO5lLo7UrRsHj3EYz724lAofzq
=k60D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|