Tagged: patent Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • joly 6:00 am on 11/12/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , patent, patent trolls, ,   

    POSTPONED: @Dickstein_LLP @InsideCounsel #PatentTrolls roundtable in NYC 

    InsideCounsel + Dickstein ShapiroTHIS EVENT HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL EARLY 2014

    On Tuesday November 19 2013 InsideCounsel and Dickstein Shapiro are hosting an afternoon roundtable that will focus on the issue of patent trolls. The panel will feature the Attorneys General of Missouri, Nebraska, and Vermont speaking about their recent efforts to combat harmful business practices involving patent trolls in their states. The panel also will feature the General Counsels of DuPont, Rackspace, and Walmart US who will speak about the effect patent trolls have had on their businesses. The panel will be moderated by Bernie Nash of Dickstein Shapiro’s State Attorney General Practice. The event includes a budget lunch and a cocktail reception. Admission is free. We have enquired about recording.

    What: Patent Troll Roundtable
    Where: Intercontinental New York Barclay. 111 East 48th Street. New York, NY 10017
    When: POSTPONED UNTIL 2014
    Register: http://img.sbmedia.com/perm/strat/sc/psg/ic/dicksteinshapiro/registration.html
    Twitter: #patenttrolls

  • joly 3:45 am on 05/17/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , patent   

    Video: Enter the Third Dimension – the legalities of 3d printing @theCSUSA #3dprinting 

    On April 16, 2012 The Copyright Society of the USA NY Chapter presented: Enter the Third Dimension (Whether You Like It or Not): The Practical and Legal Ramifications of 3D Printing at The Princeton Club in NYC.

    Description: 3D printing, a technological development which may ultimately permit local and even personal on-demand automated manufacturing of goods, has the potential to drastically alter long-standing norms of manufacturing, transportation, and even consumer demand. Is such a potentially disruptive development a net positive or negative? What will be its ultimate consequences, intended or unintended? And how will the law handle – for good or ill – these developments in coming years? This session began with a brief overview of the technology from one of its leading manufacturers. After that, the esteemed panelists discussed some of the legal and business related queries that are sure to arise as 3D printing grows in popularity.

    ipod | stills | embed | audio

  • joly 2:43 pm on 05/03/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: patent, , pubpat   

    Video: The Patent Pollution Problem #GoogleTechTalks #patent #patents 

    On April 26 2012 Google Tech Talks hosted Cardozo Professor Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT). In his talk Daniel explained why patent quality is so low in America today, described in detail the ways in which low patent quality is harming Americans, and proposed mechanisms for solving the low patent quality problem.

  • joly 12:23 am on 03/25/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , mp3, patent   

    NPR: The History of MP3 #freeculture 

    As part of an NPR series on recording formats, a story on mp3 – including an excellent interview with “father of mp3” Karlheinz Brandenburg – yields the full tale of the rise of the format, how it escaped its parents, and became the lingua franca of Internet audio.

    from the story:

    “We tried to tell the people from music industry early on, and we tried to discuss possibilities how to react to this … The idea was that the music industry wouldn’t just be able to go on, they would have to adapt to the situation as well, and if we now look back these 15 years we have to say they finally did but it was too slow and some strategic errors in there.”

    (Another group was convened in 1999 and 2000 to define methods for “secure, legal distribution of music over the Internet,” Brandenburg says.)

    “My advice was that they should shoot for a technical standard to get interoperability for all these upcoming services and MP3 players, music players and so on.

    “And … that hasn’t changed, very clearly if we don’t reach interoperability for a secured format, then the only surviving format will be format without copy protection and that is what happened in the end.”

  • joly 6:37 am on 10/07/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , patent   

    Facebook granted patent on GPS based checkins #patent 

    Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch reports that Facebook has just been granted a wide-ranging patent on location-based social networking. He writes:

    The patent appears to be pretty broad. It covers a “method of sharing locations of users participating in a social networking service at a geographic location.” The location is determined using a “GPS identifier” and it combines a status update with the member’s current location. It also seems to cover what are now known as checkins:

    the status information manually provided by the first user on an input module of the mobile device; associating the location information with the status information of the first user in a database; and sending the status information and the location information of the first user to a second user for display.

    In other words, Facebook might just have been granted a patent to Foursquare’s (and Gowalla’s) main feature.

  • joly 3:04 pm on 10/05/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , patent, , ,   

    US Dept. of Commerce launches inquiry into copyright and Internet innovation #freeculture 

    US Dept. of CommerceThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) into “the relationship between the availability and protection of online copyrighted works and innovation in the Internet economy.”

    Comments can be emailed to copyrightnoi-2010@ntia.doc.gov. Deadline is November 19 2010.

    Full press release is below:
    (More …)

  • joly 4:14 pm on 08/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: interval research, , patent, paul allen   

    Is Paul Allen’s goal patent reform? 

    We are all aware of Paul Allen’s recent moves to sue leading Internet companies over a number of patents held by Interval Research.

    Larry Downes, author of The Laws of Disruption, has come up with a novel explanation for Allen’s sudden move into litigation – his ultimate aim is patent reform!

    From Paul Allen: When a Patent Troll is an Enigma :

    Something tells me there’s something else going on. Patent litigation is an elaborate chess game, and it feels like this is a move deep inside a very long-running game. There’s a great deal that’s broken about the patent system. I’m just not sure yet whether this lawsuit is Exhibit A.

    What other answer is possible? Here’s at least one crazy possibility (there are crazier ones, but this one at least is plausible). Maybe Allen is not the world’s most famous patent troll. Maybe he’s out to become the world’s most famous patent reformer. Maybe he doesn’t want so much to win as to publicize how dangerous his patents are.

    Perhaps in asserting these patents, with their potential to unsettle so much of what is taken as settled business practices in the digital economy, he hopes to force leading tech companies and Congress to acknowledge that the system is broken and fix it. If he wins, or even if he just wears down the other side, perhaps he’ll demand not financial tribute but actual reform of a system that gives patent holders like him the power to disrupt digital life.

    If so, it’s a dangerous gambit. On the other hand, it’s hard to see how the patent system could get much worse than it already is.

  • joly 12:47 pm on 06/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , patent, scotus   

    Supreme Court on Bilski – no but whatever.. 

    The Supreme Court opinion in re:Bilski is in.  With typical ambivalence it upheld the federal court’s decision while rejecting it’s reasoning, replacing the machine-or-transformation test with essentially no test at all. The Court rejected the patent just because it was an “abstract idea”. From the syllabus:

    The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101. Although that test may be a useful and important clue or investigative tool, it is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process” under §101. In holding to the contrary, the Federal Circuit violated two principles of statutory interpretation: Courts “‘should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed,’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 182, and, “[u]nless otherwise defined, ‘words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’” ibid. The Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “process” that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.
    . . .
    Because petitioners’ patent application can be rejected under the Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas, the Court need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. Nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing the Federal Circuit’s past interpretations of §101.

    So this would seem to leave the whole question of software patents as wide open as ever.

    Opinion is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

    • Seth Johnson 2:26 pm on 07/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The machine-or-transformation test is a hack that diverts attention from the right understanding of software and patentability. I actually see this ruling as helpful in its not relying on that. It essentially pushes us to make the argument against software patents based on their being abstract ideas. By finding the machine-or-transformation principle not sufficient and by not finding an exclusion on business method patents, the court actually pushes us to making the right point.

      Below are comments I posted on the following article. I posted a couple of followup responses there:

      Software patents are patents not just on abstract ideas, but on *pure* abstract ideas. By pure I don’t mean “extremely” — I mean “independent of empirical facts or particulars,” like math.

      The general purpose logic processor does *pure* logical operations; it follows that the instructions provided to that processor are likewise *pure* logic. However, what translates a pure logical algorithm or process to something of specific use is the devices you attach to the logic processor. It is in principle perfectly conceivable that the *exact same* set of logic instructions could control *entirely different* processes, depending on what devices you attach.

      And while higher-level, human-readable code uses language that humans can relate to specific things or uses in the empirical world (variable names like “PartNo” or “EmployeeID” or “Chemical1Proportion,” or function names like “InitiateStirring” or “TurnOnBlender”), at bottom the compiled code provided to the processor is pure logical abstraction.

      The point is, the software is in principle not patentable, though it may be true that a particular empirical process that that code is being used to control, is patentable. But what decides that is the empirical process as such, not the pure algorithm expressed by the code.

      So I see this ruling as simply excluding the easier resolution to the software patent issue (an approach not really on point and not really addressing the nature of the issue of software patents) that sees software patents becoming untenable along with the invalidation of business method patents, as well as the notion that what makes something patentable is that it is a machine or a transformation.

      What makes software unpatentable is not really directly related to either of those points, but rather to the fact that it is *pure* abstraction. You don’t have to say patents only cover machines and transformations to eliminate software patents. Instead, all you have to do is show that software is always abstract because the nature of the logic processor is inherently pure — it deals only in bits/numbers and logical and mathematical operations and algorithms — and when one says those numbers and algorithms are intended to refer to or apply to something more, what you’re really saying is that there’s also an empirical process, alongside the pure code, which is the actual process which may be patentable or not.

      The distinction that counts isn’t between machines or transformations and software; it’s between pure abstraction, such as logic and math (which is definitively abstract because it is pure), and plain vanilla abstraction in the form of general principles about empirical reality, such as physical laws (which is a kind of abstraction regarding which the lines between patentability and non-patentability are harder to draw — the machine-or-transformation test is an example that gets kind of close, but doesn’t really make the right point).

    • Seth Johnson 5:06 pm on 07/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Now see what’s happened?

      USPTO, post-Bilski: A strong presumption against abstract ideas:

  • joly 2:39 am on 04/17/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , patent   

    Film: ‘Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system’ 

    Last October ISOC-NY webcast a talk by Eben Moglen ‘Patent Law at a Crossroads: Bilski and Beyond‘ concerning an important case before the United States Supreme Court that’s outcome could affect the validity of many software patents. Now a new movie ‘Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system‘ has been produced on the same topic. Watch it below:

    Sorry about this, as your browser doesn’t support HTML5, the emerging video standard for the web.

    Please watch the movie without HTML5, or download Firefox 3.6 and watch the video with built-in support for HTML5 video.

    Spread Firefox Affiliate Button

  • joly 12:43 am on 01/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , patent   

    Intellectual Property Laws In the Internet Age – Meetup 1/20/2010 

    What: Intellectual Property Laws In the Internet Age

    When: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:30 PM

    Price: $10.00 per person

    10 W. 18th St. 7th Floor
    New York, NY 10011

    Who owns your content on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn? How do you protect your work from being stolen?

    Please join us at this one-day-only lecture and Q & A aimed at addressing these and other online issues and offering tips on how to protect what you have created and placed online.

    Come join other members from Web2Fem, and MeetUp groups From Traditional2Digital, Black Creatives, Digital Creatives to learn how to protect your work and get a chance to increase your professional network with other attendees.

    The event speaker, Kelly Kocinski, was an attorney and Development Director at Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts before forming her solo practice, which focuses on the needs of individual artists and small businesses with a specialization in Intellectual Property (IP) Identification and Protection. She is also a teacher in the Design Management program at Pratt Institute.

    Ms. Kocinski will discuss the state of copyright, trademark, and patent law and how the law is trying to catch up to the technological and content-based advancements of the online world. She will discuss how those working online — whether on social media sites, blogs, or web development — can protect their content, as well as insulate themselves from liability. Finally, there will be a group discussion and Q&A to specifically address the concerns of the audience.

    Space is very limited, please RSVP soon. Please answer the 3 questions when you RSVP; by doing so, you will receive a recap of the lecture shortly after the event. This should be a great event with lots of relevant info!

    RSVP at any of these Meetup groups:

  • joly 12:35 am on 11/25/2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , patent,   

    On October 9, 2009, the University of Ri… 

    On October 9, 2009, the University of Richmond IPI held its third annual Evil Twin Debate, featuring Professor John Duffy of George Washington University Law School and Professor Jay Thomas of Georgetown Law Center debating “Bilski and Patentable Subject Matter: Method or Madness?”

    More information and a link to the video can be found here.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc