* In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we
will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
functionality.
* Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding
of the law are almost certainly now worthless.
--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-02-2008, 07:40 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Valent Turkovic
<valent.turkovic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 :
>
> Here are the highlights:
>
> * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible
> result" inquiry as being inadequate.
>
> * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather
> requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state.
>
> * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States*
>
> * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we
> will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
> functionality.
>
> * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding
> of the law are almost certainly now worthless.
Wait a few months. It's likely that some involved haven't received
their cheques yet.
--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Conrad Meyer
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
For a more accurate summary of this court decision, try this reference:
* In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we
will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
functionality.
* Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding
of the law are almost certainly now worthless.
This is a step in the right direction in terms of seeing most software
as math operations instead of a model of hardware. But the Supreme
Court is probably going to have to rule on it before the matter is
settled - if the legislation isn't changed first to be more explicit.
But the concept that I'd really like to see put forth is that if, as a
consumer, you have one set of bits incorporating a patented algorithm
you then have the right to use any other arrangement of bits to
accomplish that same algorithm's effect, just as in the hardware case
that this is supposed to model, you would be permitted to rearrange and
alter the parts of your licensed device without having to purchase a new
license to cover the same patent.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-04-2008, 10:37 PM
Matthew Woehlke
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
Valent Turkovic wrote:
Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 :
Here are the highlights:
* The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible
result" inquiry as being inadequate.
* Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather
requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state.
* In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we
will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
functionality.
* Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding
of the law are almost certainly now worthless.
Also from http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm:
Despite claiming that all that matters is the
machine-or-transformation test, the ruling also bears in mind many
other necessary conditions for patentability, such as the rule that a
patent may not “wholly pre-empt” a law of nature or principle or
mathematical formula. Also, if you wholly pre-empt a mathematical
algorithm within some narrow field of endeavor, the court rules that
this is still a pre-emption. I'll have a little more on this below.
Note "a patent may not 'wholly pre-empt' ... a mathematical formula".
...which means all those codecs from livna/rpmfusion just became 100%
legal, no royalty required*.
(* assuming the copyright license is not an issue, of course)
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Igor Peshansky: Don't hippos love water even more than dogs?
Dave Korn: Don't ask me. I didn't even know that hippos loved dogs.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-04-2008, 10:42 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
> Valent Turkovic wrote:
>> Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 :
>>
>> Here are the highlights:
>>
>> * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and
>> tangible
>> result" inquiry as being inadequate.
>>
>> * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather
>> requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state.
>>
>> * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United*
>> *States*
>>
>> * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software
>> we
>> will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
>> functionality.
>>
>> * Software patents that have been issued under the previous
>> understanding
>> of the law are almost certainly now worthless.
>
> Also from http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm:
>> Despite claiming that all that matters is the
>> machine-or-transformation test, the ruling also bears in mind many
>> other necessary conditions for patentability, such as the rule that a
>> patent may not ?wholly pre-empt? a law of nature or principle or
>> mathematical formula. Also, if you wholly pre-empt a mathematical
>> algorithm within some narrow field of endeavor, the court rules that
>> this is still a pre-emption. I'll have a little more on this below.
>
> Note "a patent may not 'wholly pre-empt' ... a mathematical formula".
>
> ...which means all those codecs from livna/rpmfusion just became 100%
> legal, no royalty required*.
>
> (* assuming the copyright license is not an issue, of course)
I assume an "official" statement on this from Fedora/RedHat legal folk
will be forthcoming.
Unless it already has, and I missed it, which is entirely possible.
> --
> Matthew
> Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
> --
> Igor Peshansky: Don't hippos love water even more than dogs?
> Dave Korn: Don't ask me. I didn't even know that hippos loved dogs.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
--
novus ordo absurdum
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-04-2008, 10:50 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jon Ciesla
> I assume an "official" statement on this from Fedora/RedHat
> legal folk will be forthcoming.
>
> Unless it already has, and I missed it, which is entirely possible.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-04-2008, 11:31 PM
Matthew Woehlke
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also from http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm:
Despite claiming that all that matters is the
machine-or-transformation test, the ruling also bears in mind many
other necessary conditions for patentability, such as the rule that a
patent may not �wholly pre-empt� a law of nature or principle or
mathematical formula. Also, if you wholly pre-empt a mathematical
algorithm within some narrow field of endeavor, the court rules that
this is still a pre-emption. I'll have a little more on this below.
Note "a patent may not 'wholly pre-empt' ... a mathematical formula".
...which means all those codecs from livna/rpmfusion just became 100%
legal, no royalty required*.
(* assuming the copyright license is not an issue, of course)
I assume an "official" statement on this from Fedora/RedHat legal folk
will be forthcoming.
Unless it already has, and I missed it, which is entirely possible.
Jeff already pointed out RH's press release. As has been stated, the
Bilski decision does not paint the issue in black and white, and as
such, I don't expect *Red Hat* to decide that including e.g. lame in
Fedora is now okay.
Nevertheless, if the rule that math cannot be patented is upheld, I
think victory, at least for some areas that have historically caused
much friction (i.e. multimedia codecs) is inevitable. (And since other
areas fall more closely into "business methods", well... those patents
are in for rough times as well.)
And it's ammunition for non-paid "patented" codec users to say
(rightfully) that the patents they are allegedly violating are, in fact,
illegal.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Igor Peshansky: Don't hippos love water even more than dogs?
Dave Korn: Don't ask me. I didn't even know that hippos loved dogs.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-04-2008, 11:43 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Woehlke
> And it's ammunition for non-paid "patented" codec users to say (rightfully)
> that the patents they are allegedly violating are, in fact, illegal.
Even if this was a clear cut KO of all software patents in the
US..which it isn't... the problem is its not just US patent law.
People like to pretend it is...but it isn't. The police raids for mp3
infringers at the German CeBIT conference will most likely happen
again next year.
-jef
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
11-05-2008, 07:52 AM
Hans de Goede
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Woehlke
And it's ammunition for non-paid "patented" codec users to say (rightfully)
that the patents they are allegedly violating are, in fact, illegal.
Even if this was a clear cut KO of all software patents in the
US..which it isn't... the problem is its not just US patent law.
People like to pretend it is...but it isn't. The police raids for mp3
infringers at the German CeBIT conference will most likely happen
again next year.
That is just the German Border Cops being stupid (*) and acting on a not proven
valid patent. The general legal opinion in the EU is still that software is not
patentable, attempts have been made to change the law, but have sofar all been
blocked by the EU parlement.
Note IANAL, this is my personal opinion, etc.
(*) and an Italian patent troll abusing this.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
