United States (change)
Shortcuts: Downloads Fedora Red Hat Network
Account Links: Cart Your Account
So there is quite a lot at stake, and the tide appears to be turning away from the profligate issuing of patents in such categories. At least the right questions are being asked. But to what extent will they reach a decision to modify or pull back? This case will help to decide. Of course, the Supreme Court is higher than this court, but having already given some direction, the Bilski case gives the appeals court the opportunity to undo what many view as damage by some decisions that opened the floodgates to all kinds of crazy patents. And that is why suddenly a large crowd of interested parties are submitting amicus briefs. The list at the court is impressive. Unfortunately, the court does not make the briefs digitally available, but Red Hat’s announcement says it will be on that page soon. And thankfully, Patently-O provides some descriptions of positions taken and explains the process.
Red Hat Puts More Muscle On Its Legal Staff — Linux — InformationWeek
Red Hat is beefing up its legal staff with two appointments to strengthen its hand in patent disputes and open source licensing issues.
Company spokesman on Wednesday declined to comment on whether Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)’s claims in early and mid-2007 that its patents cover parts of Linux had anything to do with the expansion.
“We are helping pave the way for open standards and changes in the IP regime needed for the future,” responded Robert Tiller, VP and assistant general counsel for IP, one of the new hires at Red Hat’s legal department. “We feel a responsibility to lead these efforts and to encourage projects that support open, multi-vendor standards,” he wrote in an email response.
Red Hat announced Wednesday that it was adding Tiller and Richard Fontana, a former associate of Eben Moglen at the Software Freedom Law Center, to its legal staff. Fontana will be Red Hat’s open source licensing and patent counsel.
Peter Calveley requested a re-examination of Amazon.com’s one-click patent, often held up as an example of the type of ridiculous things that are getting patents and, by extension, the mess the US patent office has become.
The patent office got it right. The one-click patent has been rejected.
I had only requested the USPTO look at claims 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 but the Office Action rejects claims 11-26 and claims 1-5 as well!
Amazon has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office’s rejection, but third party requests for reexamination, like the one I filed, result in having the subject patent either modified or completely revoked about 2/3 of the time.
Read a little more about the background of the request.
Edward R. Murrow: Who owns the patent on this vaccine?
Jonas Salk: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?
See It Now, April 12, 1955
And from a 2005 New York Times thinkpiece about intellectual property:
When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine in 1955, he waived the patent process because he wanted to protect the public as quickly as possible and thought it far more important than making money. When the vaccine was first introduced, the United States had an average of 45,000 cases of polio annually. By 1962 there were 910.
Those crazy old timers had some quaint notions back in the 20th century.
Quicktime | Real
Real Stream | Ogg Theora
Internet Archive defeats ‘National Security Letter,’ Makes it public
Open Source Initiative Responds to OLPC article.
Patent law: It’s not rocket science.
Red Hat Press
Red Hat Magazine
Dev Fu
Red Hat People
