nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jul 9, 2014 17:50:17 GMT
PC world reported this July 4th Samsung invokes Alice to challenge two Apple patents We knew it would only be a matter of time before the SCOTUS ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank would be used to defend from ridiculous patents. Here's to wishing Samsung success in their defense.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jul 9, 2014 17:42:42 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 27, 2014 19:45:36 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 26, 2014 15:27:08 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 26, 2014 13:41:54 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 25, 2014 14:26:07 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 20, 2014 20:37:03 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 20, 2014 16:19:11 GMT
An article about this Symposium: Go ask Alice — what can you patent after Alice v. CLS Bank?It seems the writer does not understand that software is math as he thinks the court ruled wrong in Gottschalk v. Benson. I understand that patent lawyers may face some frustration if they have been dealing with pure software patents. But if they realized that software per se is NOT actually patentable, they could have avoided much pain. It is hard to find a patent lawyer who is NOT in favor of software patents, especially among those that deal with software patents. (If you are, or know of a patent lawyer NOT in favor of software patents, please speak up here! We could sure use your thoughts and point of view.) The SCOTUS ruling would be clear enough to them, if they were not blinded by the thought of lost revenue. The simple answer, is that software by itself cannot be patented. If the software is just one component of a system, and if the software were replaced with something else and the system could still function, then that software can be patented, but only as a component. And similar software in a different system that does something different overall is non-infringing. If the software IS the system, then it cannot be patented. There is no reason that software, should enjoy the protection of both copyright and patents. I wonder how long it will take, or what would be necessary, to get software patent lawyers to finally understand. In any case, this SCOTUS ruling brings us one step closer and each day brings us one day closer. But then again, I am optimistic. The pessimist would say such will never happen.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 19, 2014 20:36:09 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 19, 2014 16:57:32 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 14, 2014 5:07:51 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 14, 2014 3:42:13 GMT
Never saw this site before ... Federal Circuit Feeds Us Some Humble Pie: Oracle v Google ReversedI think what is missing in the analysis, is that if one hopes to have some chance of interoperability, that it is necessary to keep interfaces the same. This is despite the 'originality' involved in the API construction itself. We have seen this principle before with things like game cartridges.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 14, 2014 0:23:27 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 11, 2014 17:14:04 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 11, 2014 12:10:33 GMT
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
|
|