http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
On Friday 07 Nov 2008, jtd wrote:
http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
Seen a similar posting on another LUG list. This is good news.
Does it have any bearing on the Indian software patent scene?
IIRC, you had posted a few links way back in July/Aug wherein Indian software patents were granted even though there is no software patent in India.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday 07 Nov 2008, jtd wrote:
http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
Seen a similar posting on another LUG list. This is good news.
Does it have any bearing on the Indian software patent scene?
IIRC, you had posted a few links way back in July/Aug wherein Indian software patents were granted even though there is no software patent in India.
JTD, one clarification. The Bilski ruling pertains to Business Method Patents and not software patents (don't ask me what the difference is, I am not a lawyer, nor a judge :-) This ruling merely said that pure business methods, untethered to hardware cannot be patented.It did not clarify whether merely adding the business method to a general purpose computer renders it patentable. For more on this, check out Groklaw:
www.*groklaw*.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555
Arun, I think it will have a bearing on the Indian situation because this is a case that is being watched allover the world. Shamnad Basheer (www.spicyipindia.blogspot.com) says that as India evolves its patent guidelines, it must ensure that it doesn't blindly copy the US and the EU. read his excellent article at: http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/05233957/A-method-to-the-madness.html?h=B
Venky
On Friday 07 November 2008 06:13:35 pm Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
www.*groklaw*.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555
link does not open
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2008 06:13:35 pm Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
www.*groklaw*.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555
link does not open
The *groklaw* string needs to be changed.
On Friday 07 November 2008 18:13, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday 07 Nov 2008, jtd wrote:
http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
Seen a similar posting on another LUG list. This is good news.
JTD, one clarification. The Bilski ruling pertains to Business Method Patents and not software patents (don't ask me what the difference is, I am not a lawyer, nor a judge :-) This ruling merely said that pure business methods, untethered to hardware cannot be patented.It did not clarify whether merely adding the business method to a general purpose computer renders it patentable. For more on this, check out Groklaw:
True. Which is why i posted the other links. The lawyer who wrote that piece is one who is defending clients patents (afaik). Business methods completely fails the patent obviousness test. But software too fails this test, once you seperate the hardware and software and reimplement one or both of them. In the case of PCs (because of it's standard interfaces) this is trivial. In the case of other hardware (custom FPGA / controller + software) it gets only a little more complex. The complexity is not in breaking down the bundle but making clueless law types understand the irrelevance of the bundle used in subversion of patent law. To the courts it seems that bundling trivial hardware and software amounts to inventiveness. My understanding is that the current ruling, even if we accept the inventiveness, would force such patents to be restricted to this and only this particular combo of hardware and software. Any reimplementation as i have pointed above, would make the patent holder unable to defend as it would then fail it's own inventiveness. Other than under the table deals by clueless companies, I see litigation as digging the patent holders grave, making it useless.
Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday 07 Nov 2008, jtd wrote:
http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
Seen a similar posting on another LUG list. This is good news.
Does it have any bearing on the Indian software patent scene?
IIRC, you had posted a few links way back in July/Aug wherein Indian software patents were granted even though there is no software patent in India.
JTD, one clarification. The Bilski ruling pertains to Business Method Patents and not software patents (don't ask me what the difference is, I am not a lawyer, nor a judge :-) This ruling merely said that pure business methods, untethered to hardware cannot be patented.It did not clarify whether merely adding the business method to a general purpose computer renders it patentable. For more on this, check out Groklaw:
The ruling is connected with Business Methods Patents. That means it is for any one who is following a specific business process (which has nothing to do with software as such). The most popular example is Amazon's One Click shopping. They claim to be the first company to have put a system where the consumer takes all items in a shopping cart, and with a single click completes the shopping (I think it is because they were storing all credit card and shipping information from previous visits). The court decided that this method of doing business was not patentable. It had nothing to do with the software.
It would probably be like Barista saying they are now offering 2 cokies free with every caffe late and want to patent that offer so no one else can copy it. The court ruling says that this is a business process, even if no one else has done it before, it is not patentable
Not directly linked to software as such. However, many software patents have been filed in the past centered around the uniqueness of a business process. So that would probably be invalid if this doctrin is followed.
Regards saswata
www.*groklaw*.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555
Arun, I think it will have a bearing on the Indian situation because this is a case that is being watched allover the world. Shamnad Basheer (www.spicyipindia.blogspot.com) says that as India evolves its patent guidelines, it must ensure that it doesn't blindly copy the US and the EU. read his excellent article at: http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/05233957/A-method-to-the-madness.html?h=B
Venky
On Saturday 08 November 2008 17:42, Saswata Banerjee wrote:
information from previous visits). The court decided that this method of doing business was not patentable. It had nothing to do with the software.
True, as far as THIS case goes. But in handing down the judgement the court has questioned the premises on which invention is judged. Business methods claimed inventiveness without a tangible device. Software tries to tie a general purpose device having no invention, with software to claim a unique invention. A highily questionable practice because software is not patentable.
It would probably be like Barista saying they are now offering 2 cokies free with every caffe late and want to patent that offer so no one else can copy it. The court ruling says that this is a business process, even if no one else has done it before, it is not patentable.
Even if Barista tied the BP to a machine on wheels that located you in the shop and dispensed the extra cookies. It might be able to patent that machine. But not the process of dispensing free cookies nor can it stop someone from dispensing 1 or 1.5 or 2 cookies by hand, another machine on an air cushion / halftracks, whatever
Not directly linked to software as such. However, many software patents have been filed in the past centered around the uniqueness of a business process. So that would probably be invalid if this doctrin is followed.
jtd wrote:
On Saturday 08 November 2008 17:42, Saswata Banerjee wrote:
information from previous visits). The court decided that this method of doing business was not patentable. It had nothing to do with the software.
True, as far as THIS case goes. But in handing down the judgement the court has questioned the premises on which invention is judged. Business methods claimed inventiveness without a tangible device. Software tries to tie a general purpose device having no invention, with software to claim a unique invention. A highily questionable practice because software is not patentable.
It would probably be like Barista saying they are now offering 2 cokies free with every caffe late and want to patent that offer so no one else can copy it. The court ruling says that this is a business process, even if no one else has done it before, it is not patentable.
Even if Barista tied the BP to a machine on wheels that located you in the shop and dispensed the extra cookies. It might be able to patent that machine. But not the process of dispensing free cookies nor can it stop someone from dispensing 1 or 1.5 or 2 cookies by hand, another machine on an air cushion / halftracks, whatever
quite true. Further, even if barista patented the machine, someone can make another machine which does the same thing (giving 2 cookies) in a different manner.
Incidentally, till the patent law was revised 4-5 years ago, India was always protected process patents, not product patents. That is why Indian pharma companies could make the same medicine in a slightly different manner and sell it. Now, what the new ruling is saying is the opposite.
Regards saswata
Not directly linked to software as such. However, many software patents have been filed in the past centered around the uniqueness of a business process. So that would probably be invalid if this doctrin is followed.
On Friday 07 November 2008 17:54, Arun Khan wrote:
On Friday 07 Nov 2008, jtd wrote:
http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=371
Software patents are no more in the USA, even if linked to general purpose hardware. Probably even those linked to special purpose hardware.
Seen a similar posting on another LUG list. This is good news.
Does it have any bearing on the Indian software patent scene?
Definetly.
IIRC, you had posted a few links way back in July/Aug wherein Indian software patents were granted even though there is no software patent in India.
SPs in India are superficially linked to some hardware. Several to mere pcs. Some to a little different (typical TY engineering servo motor drives) hardware. Since a precedent has been set, i am sure that patent trolls will now think a hundred times before serving a notice. Wether the granted patents will be reversed, unlikely unless someone challenges them.
Till date there has been no response to my letter to the patent office on the SP issue.
-
Arun Khan -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Nishit Dave -
Saswata Banerjee -
Venkatesh Hariharan