decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM
Friday, December 01 2006 @ 12:51 PM EST

The MIT/Boston University conference on software patents that I mentioned earlier, Software Patents: A Time for Change? has now posted PDFs of the talks and accompanying slides. Now that it appears patents are in our future, you might like to take a look. I'm told there will be audio and video of most of the talks soon. Red Hat's Mark Webbink has an interesting title, "Software Patents and Reality." [PDF] And James Besson and Michael Meuer are writing a book, "Do Patents Work?", and they have a draft chapter, "Abstract Patents and Software" [PDF] that explains, among other things, what is different about software patents compared to patents in other tech fields.

Also Pacer has the schedule posted for the hearings on the various summary judgment motions in SCO v IBM. These should be fun, so synchronize your watches and make whatever arrangements you can. As you can see, there will be three days of hearings, 3/1/2007 03:00 PM, 3/5/2007 02:30 PM, and 3/7/2007 02:30 PM all in Room 220 before Judge Dale Kimball.

One thing that is different about software patents, the chapter explains, is the almost universal opposition to them by software programmers, and there are other important differences as well:

Moreover, in US history, no other technology has experienced anything like the broad industry opposition to software patents that arose beginning during the 1960s. Major computer companies opposed patents on software in their input to a report by a presidential commission in 1966 and in amici briefs to the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. 3 Major software firms opposed software patents through the mid-1990s (for example in USPTO hearings in 1994). Perhaps more surprising, software inventors themselves have mostly been opposed to patents on software. Surveys of software developers in 1992 and 1996 reported that most were opposed to patents (Oz 1998). Although other countries have witnessed general opposition to patents in the past (for example, some European countries abandoned the patent system during the 19 th century) and although some countries have opposed patents on certain technologies in the past (for example, some countries permitted patents on manufacturing processes for pharmaceuticals, but not patents on the chemical structures themselves), such broad opposition from within the effected industry and among the effected inventors seems to be unprecedented in the U.S....

Patents on software are not just like other patents. The evidence shows that software patents are particularly prone to litigation and to disputes over patent boundaries, a concern that has been raised about them since the 1960s. We attribute these problems to the abstract nature of software technology; too many software patents claim all technologies with similar form or all means of achieving a result, when the actual invention is much more limited and often trivial.

Patent law has developed a number of doctrines to circumscribe abstract patent claims. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit has set software-specific precedents that essentially remove most restrictions on abstract claims in software. Perhaps the court acted out of a desire to promote patents in this field of technology that has historically not used patents. However, the result has been both a proliferation of software patents and a proliferation of lawsuits. Software patents are, in fact, responsible for a major share of patent lawsuits. They thus play a central part in the failure of the patent system as a whole. Any serious effort at patent reform must address these problems and failure to deal with the problems of software patents—either with softwarespecific measures or general reforms—will likely doom any reform effort.

Here's the info from Pacer on the IBM summary judgment motion schedule:

11/29/2006 - 885 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 777 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counterclaims, 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract, 784 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, 782 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, 783 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, 776 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims, 785 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim: Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2007 03:00 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/29/2006 - 886 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 777 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counterclaims, 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract, 784 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, 782 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, 783 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, 776 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims, 785 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim: Motion Hearing set for 3/5/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/29/2006 887 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 777 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counterclaims, 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract, 784 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, 782 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, 783 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, 776 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims, 785 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim: Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

They list all the motions on all three days, but in reality they will be taken sequentially, and Judge Kimball's recent order told us that it will be made clearer shortly:

The pending dispositive motions will be heard on the following dates: Thursday, March 1, 2007 (3:00pm-5:00pm); Monday, March 5, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm); and Wednesday, March 7, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm). The parties are directed to submit a proposal by no later than January 12, 2007, setting forth the most efficient sequence for hearing the motions, with both parties having equal time on each motion.

So, after January 12, we'll have a clearer picture of the sequence. That way, if there is a particular motion you are most interested in, you'll have an idea of when it will be heard. You can find all the motions, and the memoranda in support, on Groklaw's IBM Timeline page. Just match up the numbers.


  


MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM | 168 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 01:02 PM EST
If Required

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: laitcg on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 01:05 PM EST
Currently (1303 EST) there is an rss XML parse error on the rss feed
http://www.groklaw.net/backend/GrokLaw.rdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST
Howdy PJ.

I wish these two subjects would have been two distinct articles instead of being
combined since they really don't relate directly to each other. Just a nice
request that you may want to consider splitting these.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM
Authored by: bradley13 on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 03:01 PM EST
"such broad opposition from within the effected industry and among the
effected inventors seems to be unprecedented..."

Meanwhile, in the current patent-related case before the supreme court, the
attorney prosecuting the patent claim noted - apparently proudly - that
"every patent bar" had filed a brief on his client's behalf.

Makes it rather clear who *really* profits from software patents, doesn't it?

Somebody hit the legislature with a cluebat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 03:45 PM EST
Abstract patent paper states that 13% of business method patents are litigated.
Where did they get that figure from? Seems awful high to me. I read somewhere
that 2 million patents are currently in force and only 2,000 patent lawsuits
filed every year (some involving the same patent).

[ Reply to This | # ]

By SCOG "logic", Microsoft and Novell are now in the gutter
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST
"# MS, Novell Take Partnership to the Streets
Microsoft and Novell have already contacted more than 100 potential customers in
the United States and Europe to sell interoperability deals between SuSE Linux
and Windows, according to Susan Heystee, Novell's newly appointed head of the
controversial partnership. - Antone Gonsalves, CRN"

Hmm. By SCOG (and thus M$) "logic" anything that comes near anything
else must be part of the first thing. Sewer gutters come near streets. M$ and
Novell are taking partnerships to the street. Therefore M$ and Novell are
taking their partnerships to the gutter. Seems to match recent reports of
people dumping SUSE or dropping purchase plans.

Anybody know Susan Yeystee? Does she have any credibility with open source/GPL?
Or is she a Microsoft rep in disguise? From her Forbes profile, her background
is with proprietary supply-chain software. For somebody making $500+K / year as
she is, was she a bit "hasty" in taking a role supposedly related to
open source?

Novell just keeps digging the pit deeper. The ONLY way out of the hole is to
STOP DIGGING AND GET OUT. That Christmas bonus this year isn't worth what it's
going to cost you next year. People seem to be fleeing from SUSE since the bone
headed "agreement" was announced. It's time to come clean, Novell.
Tell us what is REALLY covered, and tell us what you're REALLY up to. We know
Microsoft won't - we expect better of you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIT/BU SW Patent Talks Online and Schedule for SJ Hearings in SCO v IBM
Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 07:46 PM EST
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas..........

;^)



---
On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
8th day SCO litigated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very interesting...
Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 08:33 PM EST

I was under the impression that it was only open source developers who were against software patents. But this article makes it sound like that almost all developers, whether open source or not, oppose it. Very interesting...

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why? - Authored by: globularity on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 09:10 PM EST
    • Why? - Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 11:29 PM EST
    • Why? - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, December 02 2006 @ 02:34 AM EST
IBM and software patents
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 09:22 PM EST
Anyone else ever read the journal Research Disclosures? IBM used to use it a
*lot* for publicly disclosing ideas. This is a journal that exists specifically
for scuttling patent rights. The deal is that authors write up a potentially
new idea and publish in Research Disclosures as a brief *public* disclosure.
This then renders the idea unpatentable... supposedly. Patent examiners can't
check everything, so the author might still end up stuck with fees involved in
challenging a patent. However, with prior art already out there in a publicly
available journal, challenging a patent becomes a lot easier. With IBM having
used Research Disclosures in the past (for software ideas), I wonder if they
might feel relieved if software patents just went away.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A root cause?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 11:28 PM EST
Perhaps the court acted out of a desire to promote patents in this field of technology that has historically not used patents.

The courts have no business doing any such thing.

--
dnl

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm okay with software patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 11:29 PM EST
As long as the patent application inludes the source code AND that it's
original.

But, I would love to see them gone more. Patents slow things down and create
chilling fear in the fastest functional art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the defeatism?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 02 2006 @ 10:44 AM EST

Now that it appears patents are in our future

They're in the US. If you want to give up fighting against them there, that's your decision.

But software patents are not yet the law in Europe. This battle is far from lost. You're not helping by your defeatist attitude.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds