Comments for AwakenIP http://www.awakenip.com Bringing Intellectual Property to Life Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:17:35 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on LIFO List of Statutory/Non-Statutory Software Patent Claims by Ednaldo http://www.awakenip.com/?p=519&cpage=1#comment-2335 Ednaldo Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:17:35 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=519#comment-2335 0There shouldn't be a srftwaoe patent. Software is essentially a book written in a different language. It should have stayed within the realm of copyright protection and no further. This is more a case of which was done better; The Lord of the Rings (Apple) or A Song of Fire and Ice (Android). Both take their cues from The Once and Future King (Linux) and The Poetic Edda (Unix). In the end it is all language and while it can be copyrighted, any similarities need to be brushed off as unintentional or incidental and not a violation of intellectual property. If you didn't create the language, you don't get to own it. It doesn't matter how well you write in it, you are just borrowing what someone else did before. 0There shouldn’t be a srftwaoe patent. Software is essentially a book written in a different language. It should have stayed within the realm of copyright protection and no further. This is more a case of which was done better; The Lord of the Rings (Apple) or A Song of Fire and Ice (Android). Both take their cues from The Once and Future King (Linux) and The Poetic Edda (Unix). In the end it is all language and while it can be copyrighted, any similarities need to be brushed off as unintentional or incidental and not a violation of intellectual property. If you didn’t create the language, you don’t get to own it. It doesn’t matter how well you write in it, you are just borrowing what someone else did before.

]]> Comment on AwakenIP Awake Again by Akk http://www.awakenip.com/?p=517&cpage=1#comment-2334 Akk Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:56:11 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=517#comment-2334 I don't see how the Free Software Foundation could possibly have couclnded that the Bilski decision constitutes a step toward ending software patents. ... Of course, reading the majority opinion is a bit like reading tea leaves -- it's so vague that you can interpret it in many ways. However, from the decision I don't think the Court would necessarily "sift" software and business method patentability within a single case. The decision wasn't about business methods so much as it was about the invalidity of patents on abstract ideas. Therefore, in a case that involved both business methods and software, I would expect the Court to focus primarily on whether or not the "invention" was an abstract idea. The Court also does not seem inclined to decide issues other than those that are immediately before it, so I wouldn't expect them to issue any sweeping pronouncements that would affect numerous different cases or industries. What they decide will likely be limited to the facts of each particular case. I don’t see how the Free Software Foundation could possibly have couclnded that the Bilski decision constitutes a step toward ending software patents. … Of course, reading the majority opinion is a bit like reading tea leaves — it’s so vague that you can interpret it in many ways. However, from the decision I don’t think the Court would necessarily “sift” software and business method patentability within a single case. The decision wasn’t about business methods so much as it was about the invalidity of patents on abstract ideas. Therefore, in a case that involved both business methods and software, I would expect the Court to focus primarily on whether or not the “invention” was an abstract idea. The Court also does not seem inclined to decide issues other than those that are immediately before it, so I wouldn’t expect them to issue any sweeping pronouncements that would affect numerous different cases or industries. What they decide will likely be limited to the facts of each particular case.

]]> Comment on LIFO List of Statutory/Non-Statutory Software Patent Claims by Global Week in Review 29 August 2012 from IP Think Tank http://www.awakenip.com/?p=519&cpage=1#comment-2283 Global Week in Review 29 August 2012 from IP Think Tank Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:22:32 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=519#comment-2283 [...] List of statutory/non-statutory software patent claims (AwakenIP) [...] [...] List of statutory/non-statutory software patent claims (AwakenIP) [...]

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by anonymous http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2250 anonymous Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:07:43 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2250 What you're describing is CAFC defiance to SCOTUS. What can anyone say but, go ahead , make my day. Continue defying them. I couldn't work harder and implement a better strategy for the abolition of software and BM patents. (that's "business method" , not "bowel movement". Please. Don't get the two confused. ) What you’re describing is CAFC defiance to SCOTUS. What can anyone say but, go ahead , make my day. Continue defying them. I couldn’t work harder and implement a better strategy for the abolition of software and BM patents. (that’s “business method” , not “bowel movement”. Please. Don’t get the two confused. )

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by Apple Repeats Old Mistake by Neglecting Execution, Emphasising Patents | Techrights http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2238 Apple Repeats Old Mistake by Neglecting Execution, Emphasising Patents | Techrights Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:22:00 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2238 [...] Expands Patentability for Software” says this new article about RCT vs. Microsoft. Thankfully, the Federal Circuit is bringing normalcy back to recent [...] [...] Expands Patentability for Software” says this new article about RCT vs. Microsoft. Thankfully, the Federal Circuit is bringing normalcy back to recent [...]

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by Online Global Week in Review 10 December 2010 from IP Think Tank http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2234 Online Global Week in Review 10 December 2010 from IP Think Tank Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:14:38 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2234 [...] CAFC: Section 101 and process claims: Research Corp. v. Microsoft (Patently-O) (Patents4Software) (AwakenIP) [...] [...] CAFC: Section 101 and process claims: Research Corp. v. Microsoft (Patently-O) (Patents4Software) (AwakenIP) [...]

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by Renee Jones http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2232 Renee Jones Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:29:00 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2232 All you are saying is that the CAFC refuses to follow the Supreme Court's guidance, as always. These judges think that they have the authority to re-write patent law as they see fit according to their own political beliefs. It just means the Supreme Court will have to knock them down again, because this sort of test will bankrupt the country with litigation over absurd patents that could not legally be granted under the actual meaning of the law. All you are saying is that the CAFC refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance, as always. These judges think that they have the authority to re-write patent law as they see fit according to their own political beliefs. It just means the Supreme Court will have to knock them down again, because this sort of test will bankrupt the country with litigation over absurd patents that could not legally be granted under the actual meaning of the law.

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by Scott Dunn http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2231 Scott Dunn Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:03:05 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2231 Seems like patentees would like a patent on the claims rather than the method. Seems like patentees would like a patent on the claims rather than the method.

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by vexorian http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2230 vexorian Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:26:12 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2230 Yay for patent trolls! Yay for patent trolls!

]]> Comment on As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software by Tim Rue http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497&cpage=1#comment-2228 Tim Rue Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:20:23 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=497#comment-2228 Not really sure if I understand what the article is saying and currently don't have the time to dig in. However what comes to mind is an analogy of doing some very difficult calculation and claiming property rights due its difficulty. But then what is complex and difficult to do using one methodology/toolset but becomes simple and obvious when using another methodology/toolset... the analogy is the difference between using the Roman numeral system to do simple algerbra, instead of the Hindu-Arabic decimal system, or even pre-algrebra mathematics. Interesting how the toolset itself is abstraction based. To extend beyond the abstract subset of mathematical symbols...there is <a>Abstraction Physics!</a> Not really sure if I understand what the article is saying and currently don’t have the time to dig in.
However what comes to mind is an analogy of doing some very difficult calculation and claiming property rights due its difficulty. But then what is complex and difficult to do using one methodology/toolset but becomes simple and obvious when using another methodology/toolset… the analogy is the difference between using the Roman numeral system to do simple algerbra, instead of the Hindu-Arabic decimal system, or even pre-algrebra mathematics.

Interesting how the toolset itself is abstraction based.
To extend beyond the abstract subset of mathematical symbols…there is Abstraction Physics!

]]>