|
Uh Oh - US Patent "Reform" Alert-- by Marbux |
|
Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 12:49 PM EDT
|
Marbux has been following patent developments in the US. Note that a House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary hearing on "patent quality improvement" will be webcast live this afternoon at 4:30 EDT. As you know, Groklaw is neutral as to politics, but I know many of you will be interested in this news. Here is his report.
**********************************
A U.S. House of Representatives committee will hold its first hearing today on proposed patent legislation. A live webcast is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. (EDT) for the hearing to be convened by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary. A related hearing is scheduled before a Senate committee on April 21, but is expected to be postponed until April 25.
The draft legislation appears to have the potential if enacted to mark the first time Congress has approved of software patents. The legislation is intended in part to overrule portions of the decision in Eolas v. Microsoft (PDF), decided last month by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
That case was a software patent case, and it is likely that the decision will be discussed as part of the "legislative history" of the bill, if enacted. That legislative history could lead to a later judicial decision that Congress approved of software patents by enacting the proposed legislation. (The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that whether software patents should be available must be decided by Congress.)
The legislative proposal (PDF) has not yet been formally introduced, but has been circulating the last few days. A team of lawyers has begun summarizing various provisions at Patently-O, a patent law blog. Its outline as of April 17, with individual topics hyperlinked on the blog to explanatory posts, is as follows:
* Creating a post-grant opposition procedures;
* Willfulness: Increased damages may not be awarded based merely on the knowledge of a patent or its contents;
* Taking away the clear right for an injunction for infringing activity;
* First-to-file (rather than first-to-invent) rights;
* Expanded definitions of prior art;
* Assignee may file for the application and be granted a patent (rather than the inventor);
* Elimination of the best mode requirement;
* Changes to the duty of candor and unenforceability;
* Damages: when invention is a portion of a larger product, royalties are only calculated for a portion of the product;
* Publication of all patent applications after 18 months;
* Prior user rights;
* Overruling Microsoft v. Eolas -- component must be tangible;
* and more.
See generally, Patent-O for current details. (We're still looking for further resources on the legislation, so check back here later for further links.)
The proposed patent legislation apparently originated in large part with the Business Software Alliance ("BSA"), a trade organization for several large software companies including Microsoft, HP, and IBM. In January of this year, the BSA issued a report, Intellectual Property in the 21st Century (PDF), describing its goals for patents and copyright legislation. See also later short document summarizing the BSA goals.
The BSA folk let no moss grow on their feet. On February 10, they met with key national leaders. High Tech CTOs Meet with Hill Leaders, White House Officials (BSA press release).
One week later, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appointed Senator Orrin Hatch to the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force for the 109th Congress. Hatch Tapped for High-Tech Task Force, press release (February 17, 2005). According to the press release, "[t]he Task Force includes 14 Republican Senators and will help form legislation on a wide variety of issues that affect high technology industries, including intellectual property[.]"
On March 17, a new Senate subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary was established with jurisdiction over patent law, the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Senator Hatch was appointed as its chairman. "Hatch to Head Senate Panel on Copyright, by David McGuire, Washington Post. According to a press release issued the same day by the office of the new subcommittee chairman's office:
"I have an aggressive agenda for this subcommittee, starting with comprehensive patent reform," Hatch said. "We need strong patent protection to give incentives for innovation and economic growth."
Over the next few weeks, Hatch and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the subcommittee's ranking minority member, intend to initiate a series of hearings on patent reform with the objective of developing any necessary and appropriate legislation. The issues Hatch would like to address include increasing the quality of patent reviews, considering new post-grant opposition procedures, and shoring up the long-term resources of the Patent and Trademark Office.
Given that background, one might suspect that a strong lobbying effort by software patent opponents may be necessary to overcome the legislative initiative.
|
|
Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Corrections (if any) go here please.
---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cinly on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
I always thought that "First-to-file (rather than first-to-invent)
rights" is one of the strength of the US Patent System. Eseentially it
means if I can prove that I did it before the patentee, I (and everyone else) is
in the clear.
Most other country practise first-to-file coz it is easier to administer. I
actually prefered 'first-to-invent' as it is a higher burden of proof.
---
All views expressed here are my own and do not reflect that of any institution I
am affiliated to[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lifewish on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
"We need strong patent protection to give incentives for innovation and
economic growth."
Now why does that give me the cold shivers?
---
To err is human but, to really screw up, you need a computer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clueless on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
My day (Night, actually) in the sun.
Make links clickable, with Example text
-clueless
(God, I hate these port
scanner intrusion attempts) --- Misconceptions lead to miscarriages
('cause clueless is as clueless does) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT here-Oops - Authored by: clueless on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Links - double OOPS - Authored by: grundy on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- The tragedy of the commons - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- sen hatch... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- More IP nonsense at the Reith lecture on the BBC - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- Server factoids - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- Duke Law Webcast Torrent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- A philosophical thought for politicians and PHB's regarding "I told you so." - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- Prison terms on tap for 'prerelease' pirates - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- coffee encounters - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- FFII Update. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:40 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: bsm2003 on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- "Intellectual property and SAP: seeding the Year of the Partner" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Google/Groklaw problem? - Authored by: atul on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT
- "Lawsuits push SCO to the brink" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 09:55 PM EDT
- Ballmer's next lockin? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 10:21 PM EDT
- "Opera Software Upgrades Hacker Defenses" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- "Spammers Harvest E-mail Addresses from P2P Networks" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 11:01 PM EDT
- "Windows Server 2003 SP1 Breaks 14 Apps" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 11:07 PM EDT
- "Novell delivers Linux package to home PCs" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- "India's fastest supercomp up and running in Pune" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:31 AM EDT
- "Finance firm opts for Linux" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
- OT here -- an idea on obvious or prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 22 2005 @ 12:45 AM EDT
|
Authored by: clueless on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
And I thought the increasing class differences in third world countries
following US advice were problems of their own creation.
If first filers get patent rights, then file, FOSS, file.
PJ, I would like to help (along with a lawyer colleague, who's a new member
here) with some articles relating to Indian Patents and Copyright laws, cyber
laws, etc. We're about to embark on our study, so I don't know how much we can
actually contribute. Do give us some guidelines.
-clueless
---
A farewell to silly .sigs[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
Hmm, elimination of injunctive rights and computation of damages based on
"partial use" (what constitutes "partial use", for example, of that silly patent
on offloading tcp in a Windows machine, anyway, .01% by code? by % of customers
that use it?) seems a very effective model to protect the interest of those who
already have large patent portfolio's and effectivily eliminate the rights of
those who do not in the software industry.
And how does "first to file"
relate to "prior art", if such "prior art" is itself not patented?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
One week later, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appointed
Senator Orrin Hatch to the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force for the 109th
Congress.
Why does this give me the
willies?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
Aside from the approval of software patents - a matter of concern - there are
some points in the proposal that seem positive steps:
* Creating a post-grant opposition procedures;
(obviously good)
* Willfulness: Increased damages may not be awarded based merely on the
knowledge of a patent or its contents;
(also good as it takes away the fear of doing patent searches)
* Expanded definitions of prior art;
(possibly moving toward the European model, which admits much more as prior art
- and thus makes it easier to attack bogus patents)
* Publication of all patent applications after 18 months;
(this seems to follow the UK procedure, and combined with the removal of
"triple damages for looking" could help peer review)
* Prior user rights;
(Not sure, but this sounds like a small but sometimes important provision in UK
patent law.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
The net effect of these changes would seem to me to replace the publishing
model of software, where one creates, copyrights, and publishes a software
work, with one whereby every piece of software could be taxed and tolled by
those who may have some partial patent interest. This is not patent reform,
but a complete revolutionary change in the fundimental economics of
software
desguised as patent reform.
Imagine for example, if this model applied to
literature, since there are
parallels with software. You published a childrens
story, and had to pay some
amount to the estate of Dr. Sues because of some
patents, something to
Disney because of some other patents, something to
xxx...etc. None of them
could stop you from publishing (no injunction) but
each could charge you for
the right to publish based on patents. Each
represents a little toll bridge.
That is what I see fundimentally in these
proposals.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
Register
Article on how "Microsoft was today granted a patent for accessing data used
by the emergency services."
"TheoDP points out it was filed a month after
the September 11 attacks in the United States."
RDE
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
Why was I not surprised to see the BSA behind this? Maybe because the BSA is
primarily run by and for Microsoft, and many of these proposals clearly are
designed to make things easier on Microsoft. Let's look at some:
* Overruling Microsoft v. Eolas -- component must be tangible.
Funny how a half billion dollar issue wound up being part of a proposed bill.
Microsoft is tired of patent owners (valid or otherwise) suing them in court
after MS misappropriates their technology, so they are trying to change things
to make it easier for them to get away with their usual thefts.
* Willfulness: Increased damages may not be awarded based merely on the
knowledge of a patent or its contents.
* Taking away the clear right for an injunction for infringing activity.
* Damages: when invention is a portion of a larger product, royalties are only
calculated for a portion of the product.
Clearly fit the explanation above... designed to lessen the impact on MS when
they get caught in the future.
* First-to-file (rather than first-to-invent) rights.
Clearly favors large companies (like MS) who have the money and staff to aid in
filing patent claims over everything they do. I certainly can't afford to file
for patents, so even if I invent something, MY invention could be LEGALLY STOLEN
by someone who CAN afford to file before me.
* Assignee may file for the application and be granted a patent (rather than the
inventor).
In other words, Microsoft DIRECTLY gets the invention instead of the employee
who actually invented the thing. Again, clearly favoring the corporation over
the individual.
This is clearly aimed directly at expanding the rights of companies over
individuals. Companies have less liability, can take the patent from employees,
and legally steal patents simply by filing first using their huge cash reserves.
If any of this goes through, there'll be even less innovation and far fewer
individual programmers than ever.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Let me propose a few goals for Open Source proponents,
1) Better simpler pre and post issue challenge procedures.
2) Elimination of "trivial" or "obvious" patents
3) Strong definition of software and methods.
Most of the changes I see listed could be either good or bad, depending on the
details.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
"I have an aggressive agenda for this subcommittee, starting with
comprehensive patent reform," Hatch said. "We need strong patent
protection to give incentives for innovation and economic growth."
Frist is nothing but a crook. Check into teh Eli Lily pharma scandal, how he
has been rewarded millions by the pharm for letting them off the hook after
poisoning a whole generation of american children with mercury-based vaccine.
Another case of Frist Malfeacance is his diagnosis withuot examination of Terry
Chiavo. That is not the proper bahaviour for a doc. Frist is the Senate leading
knee-jerker, quick to get up and deny news stories, without examining them at
all, and usually after the fact, he's caught lying.
I don't find Frist Aggressive. I find him simply offensive. A disgrace to the
US Senate.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jig on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
well, good barring the fact that MS is enacting legislation ...
* Overruling Microsoft v. Eolas -- component must be tangible
doesn't something being 'tangible' mean it can't be software?
those closest this seems to come to is copyright, where you can only have a
'pentent' on a specific peice of software, not a genre of software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
The article's take on this proposal is just wrong. Software patents have
existed for a long time in the U.S., thanks to Supreme Court interpretations of
the existing statute. The change to the law does not mention software patents
at all. It merely changes the law so that you can only be sued for exporting
"components" that are to be incorporated into an infringing product if those
"components" are "tangible." While this applies to software, as something not
"tangible," it would also apply to designs, blueprints, and general
instructions.
For software patent skeptics, this bill is a good thing,
because it generally makes it harder to obtain a patent and harder to obtain
damages. It also makes U.S. patent law more similar to European and Japanese
law.
Things that make it harder to get a (bad) patent:
- post-grant
opposition procedures - makes it easier to invalidate a bad patent without going
to court
- expanded definitions of prior art - more legally recognized prior
art makes it harder to get a patent
- publication of all patent applications
after 18 months - harder to "submarine"
Things that make it harder to get
damages:
- willfulness changes - makes it harder to get triple damages
just because the infringer knew about the patent
- taking away the clear right
for an injunction for infringing activity - reduces the patent holder's leverage
over the defendant
- prior user rights - make it harder to get damages against
people who started using the invention before you got the patent
issued.
The other changes are either highly technical, or in the case of
the switch to first-to-file, largely a wash.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
Join US-PARl@ffii.org
!!
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
Wasn't Hatch's son a lawyer for SCO?!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
If I understand correctly. The academic practice of publishing solution instead
of patenting them will be unacceptable.
I will not be able avoid patenting my innovations. Because everyone will be free
to take them and fill patent...
So all inventors will be FORCED to join this crazy game.
I hope I've mistaken[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You are - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- You are - Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: pashdown on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
I live in Utah, run an ISP here, and have decided to run against Hatch for
U.S. Senate. At this stage, no other Democrats have stepped up to the challenge
and many think it is lost already.
However, if you're as sick as I am of
seeing bad legislation, then we need to work to change the body creating the
legislation. The Internet and technology as a whole need better representation
in the US. It became apparent to me that complaining only goes so far, and that
is why I decided to run.
I could use all the support I can get. If you
want to help in any way, please visit my website
at pashdown.org. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suggestion - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:50 PM EDT
- Suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- Utah voters - Authored by: os on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 11:15 PM EDT
- Utah voters - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:38 AM EDT
- Pete Ashdown has my vote - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:28 AM EDT
|
Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
I was thinking this PM of some useful arguments to put forward in the next round
of the European patent debate - it looks like you need them in the US now too.
First, in the Duke University videos, the General Counsel of SAS Institute
revealed that SAS institute are opposed to S/W patents. That is useful evidence
that this isn't just a big business vs small developers or open source vs closed
source issue. A quote from their CEO "patents ought to be not allowed for
software. They ought to throw out everyone that there is.". See Page 2 of
the interview at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1714362,00.asp
Secondly I was considering just what proportion of the operating system market
is now open source. After MS in terms of market share there are probably first
Linux and MacOSX with roughly equal numbers (one completely open source, the
other with an open source kernel). Next most popular are probablty the BSDs and
Solaris, the formaer open source and the latter soon to be. Whilst the other
contenders (HP-UX, IRIX and IBMs various offerings) are all closed the companies
behind those are all investing heavily in Linux. Open Source is therefore big
business and not just about individuals.
GN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BsAtHome on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Actually, it is so simple to fix the whole software patent system. Just write
into law that the royalties for a patent solely dependent on the
selling/licensing price of the final software product.
That means: 0 selling/licensing price -> 0 royalties.
Very simple and very effective. Software vendors are already moving into the
services markets where the real money is. Selling/licensing software as we know
it today will be over. Please note that "payed for" programming is not
the cost of the software product nor the price for licensing. It is payment for
labour. The software can be sold/licensed for any amount (see the Bazaar).
---
SCOop of the day, Groklaw Rulez[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
I wonder if the gentlman might be so kind as to parse out the proposed patent
law reform, so that we can write our congressmen in a professional manner,
pointing out the economic implications of the various changes being proposed.
Would Steve Jobs, and Steve Wosniak have graduated from the garage if the
proposed changes had been in place?
Bill Gates and IBM only came along because the Steve's had something people
wanted!!!!
Which would be easier, crush the upstart with a patent lawsuit or try to compete
with your own product.
As much as MS likes to think they innovate, what they really do is market. It's
the little guys, with the dream that do the actual innovation. It doesn't pay
for the big boys to do it. Bill Gates can't afford the time to bend down and
pick up a dollar off the street, he looses money in the process. When you crush
the little guys, you destroy the creative spirit that is pushing humanity
forward.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
U. S.
Constitution
Read Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8
To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;
I was under the Impression It takes a majority Vote of the
People to change anything to do with the Constitution.
Article V
The
Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents
and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Ii recall a while back an Australian fellow,as a joke(protest?) tried to patent
the wheel. I wonder if at the time in the past people came up with the following
items, if current US patent law was in existence then would these items have
been patentable.
clothing
Fire
Lever
burial
eyeglasses
wheel
boat
farming
shoes
pi
fishing
weaving
money
surgery
the candle
alegbra
cooking
please feel free to add moe items to the list...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patent trivia - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Patent trivia - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 11:47 PM EDT
- Pascal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:14 AM EDT
|
Authored by: cxd on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
Ok team. It is the night before the big game again. Team SCO vs Team IBM.
Kick off 3:00pm Judge Kimball field.
I look forward meeting all the loyal IBM fans who will be attending the hearing.
I really think we need to have a lunch after the hearing where we can have some
internet access and write to the list. I know X mission near the court runs
free wireless access.
We also need to start having lunch before the hearings. Hey this needs to be an
big event.
Tums will be provided durring the hearing to calm the stomach upset that
normally takes place at a SCO hearing.
Have a great day.
Karl[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Any updates? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Game Time 3:00pm - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:05 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Please not the date, and the reference to shopping carts:
This is from:
Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 2109
Category: Standards Track
D. Kristol
Bell
Laboratories, Lucent Technologies
L. Montulli
Netscape Communications
February 1997
Page 1
HTTP State Management Mechanism
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol
Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this
protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
STATE AND SESSIONS
This document describes a way to create stateful sessions with HTTP
requests and responses. Currently, HTTP servers respond to each client request
without relating that request to previous or subsequent requests; the technique
allows clients and servers that wish to exchange state information to place HTTP
requests and responses within a larger context, which we term a
"session". This context might be used to create, for example, a
"shopping cart", in which user selections can be aggregated before
purchase, or a magazine browsing system, in which a user's previous reading
affects which offerings are presented.
There are, of course, many different potential contexts and thus many
different potential types of session. The designers' paradigmfor sessions
created by the exchange of cookies has these key attributes:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CypherOz on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
"Overruling Microsoft v. Eolas -- component must be tangible" - This
would then be retrospective legislation for the specific EOLAS case - is this
enforcable?
--
The GPL is enduring - not viral![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zarbo on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
Dear Senator Frammis (and illustrious staff),
I am a small
businessman who specializes in free and open source software (F/OSS) solutions
and consulting. Because my living is made from software produced by
independent, small developers on a world-wide basis, I am extremely concerned
about the trend towards software patents in this country and elsewhere.
Software in the F/OSS class includes the Linux operating system and numerous
other essential software development tools, protocols, and applications. Please
see my Web site at http://MyDomain.Com for information on what my business
does.
I believe that large software interests, having failed to
actually compete on a level playing field with rapid, distributed innovation,
are attempting to lock out small and medium producers of software, effectively
eliminating competition for their own products. Their means of doing this is
with software patents. The adoption of software patents in any form will stifle
creativity, eliminate competition (handing the market to a convicted monopolist
such as Microsoft), and directly eliminate jobs and companies like mine. The
large software interests couch their "concern" in terms of protecting American
jobs and technology, but this is not the full truth, it is indeed more
complicated.
The truth is that many of the existing patents may in
fact be invalid, based on examination of prior art or the fact that an idea may
not be patented. The explosion of software related patents signals the
potential to shift away from true innovation in favor of true litigation. The
financial barrier to overturning those patents, once issued, is huge and cannot
be born by any individuals or businesses but the very group that is pursing the
legislation. This cannot be allowed to become "business as
usual".
Rather than protecting U.S. technology interests, adopting
software patents or similar approaches will have the effect of eliminating
small- and medium-sized businesses like mine from the software and consulting
industries. Further, the patent suite owned by large corporations will make it
impossible to write software without the fear of being sued for violation by a
large corporation that can afford to litigate violations. Large corporations
use their patent portfolios to push a "offsetting penalties" situation -- said
in other words, "I'll trade you mine if you don't sue for yours".
This will effectively shift the development of software technologies
away from the small and medium businesses (and independent developers) in the
U.S. and toward countries that will not adopt software patents, resulting in a
loss of jobs and competitive status for the U.S. Rather than trying to futher
educate you about the harm that software patents might cause, I would like to
direct your attention to an animation that does the job very well. This
animation was produced by a British software expert and is located at
http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatAnim050418En -- please look beyond the difference in
English dialects and see the information for what it is: the unvarnished truth
about what will happen to small and medium-sized businessmen like me if software
patents are adopted.
The U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO)
definitely needs reform, but not in the way that is being suggested by the big
business interests involved in this push. Rather than quickly passing
legislation that is the direct request of the SBA or other large lobbying
organizations, please spend the time to understand the effects on constituents
like myself before allowing this legislative tactic to pass muster. Software
patents are anti-competitive, anti-innovative, and anti- small
business.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration on this
issue.
--Zarbo++;
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 20 2005 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
Remember that Oren Hatch once wanted to blow up your computer and I reckon he
still does if he could![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ferret on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
Since establishing prior art is one way to pre-empt a patent, perhaps the
FOSS community could set up a "Prior Art" website. Anyone could submit ideas and
have them reviewed and published. Of course, the idea would only work if
web-based publishing is legally considered "publication" of an idea. You could
strengthen the premise by distributing monthly/weekly email digests.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
In this month's Reader's Digest, on page 52 there is a list of patents at the
end of an unreleated artical; where they normaly post a short list of jokes.
It is called "Boredom is the Mother Of Invention"
It list four dumb patents
6,490,999 B1 collar and leash for snakes
6,024,104 Combination writting pen and dental floss dispensor.
3,150,641 Dust cover for dog (I think I have to go look that one up!)
6,299,229 Funeral parlor on wheels
Enjoy
Dennis
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
The bit of the US Constitution which enables patents explicitly says that the
purpose is to secure certain benefits to inventors. Not to filers.
So how can a law which replaces "first to invent" by "first to file" survive a
constitutional challenge?
Or does the Constitution have so little weight
these days that it can be pretty much ignored?
IANAL, obviously. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
I met Paul Heckel once, I believe it was in 1991, and wanted to find out what he
was up to. Doing some searches, I came across the following article. I
believe it can be of some interest to Groklaw readers, as first hand observation
from someone who has been there, and involved with the subject of software
patents for some time.
Debunking the Software Patent Myths
This
article was published in the Communications of the ACM, June, 1992
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/heckel-debunking.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clueless on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Being guilty of sloth and negligence, I came to know of a
surprising victory over software patents in India only through Slashdot. Mia
Culpa. There was no authentic link, and as I started flaming, I decided to
renew my acquaintance with Google. I achieved success.
The story: The Indian Patents
Act (39 of 1970) (IE only link here) is the
principal governing Act for patents in India.
Section 3 deals with
definitions of what are NOT patentable inventions. It was amended / expanded in
(1999, not relevant
and) 2002 with the Patents (Amendment) Act,
2002, which added subclause (k) to Section 3, further isolating:
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer
programme per se or algorithms;
However, later and due
to international pressures, the Indian Government brought this
Ordinance in 2004, which inter aliasought to substitute Clause 3
(k) with the following:
(b) for clause (k),
the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:–
“(k) a
computer programme per se other than its technical application
to
industry or a combination with hardware;
(ka) a mathematical
method or a business method or
algorithms;”.
It seems that business
interests (of a capitalistic nature) were being promoted by watering the clause
down. However, the Left front objected (I am surprised somebody told
them this could happen, or maybe somebody reads Groklaw) to some parts. Thi
s link has the tabled bill in the Lower (Loksabha, House of Commons) and
(Rajyasabha, House of Lords), which proposes omission of the substition through
Ordinance 2005 to Clause 3 (k). Look at the wording of the
opposition.
Thank God for small mercies. The Patents (Amendment)
Act, 15 of 2005, was passed omitting the changes brought in by Ordinance
2005. Although it brought in other evils, which are not relevant here.
Thus, I redeem myself.
-clueless
--- A
farewell to silly .sigs [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbn on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
"Groklaw is neutral as to politics [...]". Since when?
Groklaw covers software patent stories such as the fight to prevent software
patents from getting official imprimateur in the EU.
Groklaw took considerable interest in the state of Massachusetts' "open
formats" program, transcribing the speech announcing the definition of the
term and encouraging Groklaw readers to send feedback to those in charge of the
program. Interest in this story dropped off when MA. caved in to Microsoft
allowing their various proprietary Microsoft Office formats to be considered
"open formats" along side formats we can use in the free world like
PDF, HTML, and OASIS.
If I cared enough to go back and research it, I'm sure I could find other
stories concerning the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the
state. I don't know see how the decision to carry any of these stories can be
considered apolitical.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: philc on Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Measures that limit damages for large corportions also limit damages for small
operators.
If the damages correspond with the portion of the product that is infringed and
are tied to the revenue generated by the product this could save a lot of
companies. This could actually help out Linux by making it not worth the effort.
Eliminating the tripple damages will let people investigate before building.
I am likely reading this wrong. It appears that infringement judgements could be
a lot less than today. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|