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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Off Topic Here | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
RMS solution in Europe
Authored by: gibus on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST

You can read some details about how RMS' proposal works on FSF End of Software Patents blog.

Also, we have tried with RMS to draft his proposition into an amendment on the European Unitary Patent Regulation.

Unfortunately EU legislators are about to trash the article which this amendment was supposed to be applied. By the way this removal will make the whole regulation illegal, and this drafting effort will eventually result in a missed opportunity. Nevertheless, it can be a good basis to use for imposing in US or EU legislation such an exclusion of software from the threat of patents.

And as repeatedly said on Groklaw, it ain't over until it ain't over. EU citizen can still call Members of the European Parliament, free of charge and firms (not necessary European firms, US firms are also affected by the unitary patent for their operations in Europe) can still endorse this resolution, already signed by about 600 IT companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tomorrow's Conference "Solutions to the Software Patents Problem" Will be Live Streamed ~pj
Authored by: jimrandomh on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST

The primary problem with software patents, as I see it, is that they're too often used for barratry and racketeering, and no amount of prior diligence can make you safe. As the role of software increases in society, this is changing from a regulatory issue to a more basic issue of justice and fairness, which incremental changes cannot fix.

Nothing short of a radical shift in the balance of power between plaintiffs and defendants, or the complete and retroactive elimination of software patents, can restore my faith in the US judiciary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:04 PM EST
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:05 PM EST
;-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:06 PM EST
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:07 PM EST
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if FOSSPatents will cover it?
Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:52 PM EST
Nah - it's not litigation - Boring!

More likely, it threatens Florian's entire business model, so
best not to draw undue attention to it ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Restricted viewing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:00 PM EST
I'm a little disappointed at the moment...

Download the free Silverlight plug-in.
Doesn't look like I'll be watching. :-(

j

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prejudicial?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM EST
Isn't it likely to make a problem to have "the Honorable Paul Grewal,
Northern District of California, the magistrate judge on the Apple v. Samsung
litigations" speaking at this conference, when he, as described here as
that judge, apparently has some opinion on the question (or why would he be
speaking?), as prejudiced one way or the other?
(Apologies for that convoluted sentence)
This would imply bias and/or prejudice re: judgments reached in the case,
wouldn't it? If so, it may trigger retrial petition (under a different judge)
by the loser!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Prejudicial? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:50 PM EST
Risch conflates an idea with its implementation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:17 PM EST
In his comments on obviousness and sufficient disclosure Risch seems to think
that just because an *idea* is obvious to an engineer, it will also be obvious
how best to *implement* that idea. This leads him to say something which, in my
view, is patently ridiculous: (paraphrased) if every (patentable) idea is
obvious to engineers then you can't argue that there isn't sufficient disclosure
because how to implement it is obvious. These are two orthogonal issues.

I think he needs to address this fundamental logical fallacy, and it would be
nice if he chose to do it here.

[ 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 )