- From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:51:39 -0500
- To: C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org, discussion@fsfeurope.org, edri-forum@edri.org, fsl-discuss@alt.org
- CC: fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org, DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, osdem@lists.raphinou.com, gkd@phoenix.edc.org, mediamentor@yahoogroups.com, sedrati@bigfoot.com, rms@gnu.org
A very good slide show providing an overview of the software patent issue as it is being played out in Europe: > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/ W3C PPWG members may find the XML-related software patents at http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html of particular interest. I have pasted the contents of that slide at the bottom of this message. Below is the table of contents, as well as the contents of several slides describing the juridical transition in Europe toward allowing patents on "mental methods." From a message to the patents@aful.org list. Seth Johnson --- > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/ The non-patent side of software patents by Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (mailto:sedrati@bigfoot.com) Interest of software patents for a small software publisher Detailed Table of Contents First patent (obvious) justification : Defensive Defensive - Other means of "protection" Defensive - "Protection" from what ? Defensive - Cost of law suit Defensive - Cross-licensing Second patent (obvious) justification : Offensive Offensive - Incentive to R & D Offensive - Software intrinsic properties Offensive - SMEs Offensive - Economic model Offensive - Economic model and natural experiment Last patent (obvious) justification : Advertise Advertise - Dubious patent quality Advertise - Inside a vitiated system Advertise - Other means Beyond the software patent system : Social impact Social impact - Software "as such" Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2) Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2) Social impact - Software's specific nature Conclusion Conclusion - Profit vs Loss Conclusion - Non-patent side Conclusion - Example of potential infringement The End --- > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide18-0.html Social impact - Road taken by EPO leading to privatization of ideas ------------------------------------------------------------ Computer programs are not patentable Europe Patent Convention, Munich, 5 October 1973 Inventions containing a computer program are patentable Case of Schlumberger, Court of Appeal of Paris 15 June 1981: Whereas the process claimed comprises six successive stages, some of which indisputably involve the application of computer programmes, but the whole description of the patent is not reduced to information processing by computers. Machines containing an innovating computer program are patentable Generic robot containing a computer program that control the robot: stress on hardware part Algorithmic process processing information with a technical effect are patentable Case of Vicom T 208/84 Technical Board of Appeal 15 July 1986: Even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. The virtual machine theory Koch & Sterzel case T 0026/86 Technical Board of Appeal 21 May 1987:If the program controls the operation of a conventional general-purpose computer so as technically to alter its functioning, the unit consisting of program and computer combined may be a patentable invention. Computer programs that are not "as such" are patentable Case of International Business Machines Corporation T 0935/97 Technical Board of Appeal 4 february 1986:Programs for computer must be considerated as patentable invention when they have a technical character. Process of management by a computer EP756731: Interactive Information Selection Apparatus (for selecting the items for a meal) Mental methods ? --- > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide19-0.html Social impact - Examples of mental methods (1/2) ------------------------------------------------------------ Educative methods US5443036 1993: Method of exercing a cat US6015947 1999: Method of teaching music US6024577 Fujitsu 1997 : Network-based education system with capability to provide review material according to individual students' understanding levels Management methods EP209907 1989: General-purpose management system, method for operating said system and transfer slip US6070142 Andersen Consulting 1998: Virtual customer sales and service center and method Electronic trading methods US5724424 Open Market 1995: Digital active advertising US6029141 Amazon.com 1997: Internet-based customer referral system --- > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide20-0.html Social impact - Examples of mental methods (2/2) ------------------------------------------------------------ Consulting methods US5734890 Gartner Group 1995: System and method for analyzing procurement decisions and customer satisfaction Financial methods US4752877 & EP0278132 College Savings Bank 1986: Method and apparatus for funding a future liability of uncertain cost Social methods US6092051 & EP1017025 NEC 1995, 2000: Receipt-free electronic voting method and system --- > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/slide25-0.html Conclusion - Example of potential infringement ------------------------------------------------------------ SME that publishes a software on an XML repository and that is applying software patents for a dynamic page ranking strategy for a crawler and for sorting responses to queries Results of Search for "xml repository": 2 patents. Results of Search for "xml database": 6 patents. Results of Search for "xml query": 2 patents. Results of Search for "page rank": 8 patents. Results of Search for "sort query": 18 patents. US6263332 Vignette Corp 17 January 2001: System and method for query processing of structured documents A computer-implemented method of retrieving information in a first markup language through a query engine and presenting the information in any required markup language. A user inputs a query and may invoke a number of transformative sequences. These sequences contain a markup language pattern and an action, which may include transforming the tags in the first markup language to tags in a different markup language. The appropriate transformative sequence is selected and the pattern from the transformative sequence is compiled. The compiled pattern is used to perform rapid and efficient searches of documents in the database. A predicate check using the binary coding of the node as well as ancestor information confirms the node. The leaf information associated with a confirmed node is then stored. If necessary, the action from the transformative sequence is applied to change the markup language of the leaf information to that of the user http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html -- DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Received on Saturday, 22 March 2003 10:04:33 UTC