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
Tenth Amdt? | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Depends how you interpret "face value"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 05:12 PM EST

One interpretation:

    Software patents have been explicitly stated not part of patents
Another interpretation:
    Software patents (doesn't exist per se) will be treated as any other patent - this change applies to all equally
From the little that was posted: I'd say the concern on software patents wasn't spoken to at all.

No change to current status quo = will be an issue as they are today.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Software patents are *explictly* illegal
Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:38 PM EST
But they still get issued anyway.

And, as we know from Judge Birss, the courts can still be bamboozled into
enforcing them.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Tenth Amdt?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST
Yeah, I know this is Europe, but they are doing some funny federalist tricks, like, if the EUP doesn't allow software patents, maybe there is no denial of individual states right to patent software if they so wish.
The European patent with unitary effect ("unitary patent") will be an another option for users besides already-existing national patents and classical European patents.
...
high-quality machine translation will be available for the purpose of informing on the content of patents.
epo.org
... because the new court must apply a patent-owner’s domestic law when ruling on infringements, different standards will apply in different cases. Patent “trolls” may thus choose friendly territory and hold more innovative companies to ransom.
The Economist

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

European Patent Office
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:15 AM EST
An alternative was to go through the European Patent Office, but this route still required a validation process in each EU Member State, which was very burdensome and also very costly.
So, even though you get a software patent from the EPO, you still have to get it validated by the UK Patent Office even though the UK is a signatory to the EPO agreement.

I cannot see how a software patent can be validated in the UK when it is illegal throughout the EU.

So, yes, I would say that I find the response, interesting. I need to investigate further how this unitary patent system is intended to work. Clearly, it is not intended to extend the baleful glare of the EPO.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )