For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Wednesday, 22 September 2004

AND ABOUT TIME TOO!


This from The Register: Anti-software patent campaigners in the US have taken their fight to the courts. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Public Knowledge and the Consumers Union have joined forces to file an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals, asking for ambiguous patents to be declared invalid. The brief was filed in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, following a request from the appeals court for industry and public opinions on several issues of current patent law, the EFF said. This is the latest step in the EFF's campaign against broad software patents: in July the organisation drew up a top-ten list of the worst offending filings, saying it would work to see that all ten were overturned. Now it wants the courts to take a more stringent approach to awarding the patents in the first place.

"Aggressive patent holders are using vague patent language to cause havoc in the software and Internet fields",
said EFF legal eagle Jason Schultz.
"We're asking the court to rein in these claims by limiting their scope to only those things clearly laid out in the patent itself".
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) responded cautiously to the announcement. It welcomed the action, but emphasised its position that attacking bad patents is not the whole solution. A spokesman for the organisation told the Register:
"There are two things here. The first, the good point, is that it highlights to a wider audience just how bad some software patents are in the US. But our concern is that this kind of thing could give the impression that we only need to worry about bad patents, that if only patents were awarded according to the rules, properly examined and checked for prior art, everything would be OK. We don't believe that to be the case. We believe, more fundamentally, that the whole nature of patents on computer code is a mistake".
The EFF says that at the moment, US courts are interpreting vague terms in patents as broadly as possible, and will uphold a patent unless it is deemed too ambiguous. This means "improper patents of uncertain scope" are protected, giving plenty of work to legal departments, but stifling innovation and competition.

The IPKat looks forward to seeing good inventions properly patented and unmeritorious ones swept away. If only he could find the line between them ...

Vague language here, here and here
Precise language here, here and here

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yo, This blog is pretty neat. You should check out mine sometime. It pretty much covers board company email marketing message state united related stuff.

Anonymous said...

to all of the major RSS feed directories on the Internet.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about advies email en language language marketing nl nl site You should check it out sometime.

Anonymous said...

hostname n.net opt

Brian said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a reciprocal link checker site/blog. It pretty much covers reciprocal link checker related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':