Softwarepatents and patents on computer-implemented inventions (CII) are a class of patents and one of many legal aspects of computing.
Like all patents, softwarepatents are enforceable regardless of whether the competitors were aware of the patent (patent applications are kept secret for at least 18 months) and the software was completely independently developed.
Substantive law regarding the patentability of software and computer-implemented inventions, and case law interpreting the legal provisions, are different under different jurisdictions.
Patent examiners are evaluated based on the number of cases they dispose of, not whether or not they issue a notice of allowance.
For a software or computer-implemented inventions to be patented, it needs to be disclosed in a manner sufficient clear and complete for the man skilled in the art to reduce it to practice.
All software can be reduced to practice trivially by running it in a computer, but it does not seem reasonable to hold all software as patentable due to this fact.
The FFII softwarepatent workgroup is trying to single out the softwarepatents, make them better accessible and show their effects on software development.
However, EPOsoftwarepatent descriptions generally fail to provide a reference implementation, and the hard and part is usually left to the programmer.
Patent descriptions and claims use a lot of strange talk about "allocation a block of space for a variable in a memory device" etc. This may just serve to make the "invention" look "technical", but also to prepare lines of retreat for possible litigation.
Last month I discussed the fundamental impossibility of distinguishing between software and pure mathematics and argued that softwarepatents should be abolished as a result.
Patents are public records, and in a centralized industry with relatively few players--such as pharmaceuticals--the assumption that all patents are common knowledge is not unreasonable.
Patents, designed for centralized industries, have been applied to the most decentralized industry imaginable, and the result is that patentlaw is taken only partly seriously.
Software Useright: Solving Inconsistencies of SoftwarePatents: an overview by Jean-Paul Smets of "the principles, the economic impact and the potential juridical contradictions of patents and especially software related patents."
Patents on compression of random data: Jean-loup Gailly reports that The US patent office has recently granted at least two patents on a mathematically impossible process: compression of truly random data.
Software Developer Survey: a survey from October 1994 shows that many software developers are unhappy with the existing patentlaw, and want to see it changed.
When it comes to patent litigation after a patent has been granted, evidence might have to be taken that a certain piece of computer program code text sold by an alleged infringer in fact reproduces the functional behaviour as defined by the claim.
Normally, producing software code is done by utilising a structured approach: In a first step an abstract solution for the problem to be solved is derived, and in a second step a code text is noted down implementing said abstract solution.
Hence, albeit software as such cannot be subject-matter of a patentclaim, running a computer with software may fall within the scope of a patent.
Patent protection allows the patent holder to preclude others from making, using or selling the patentedinvention, as it has been defined in the patentclaims, for a period of seventeen years measured from the date the patent is granted.
To fulfill their statutorily defined function, patent documents must effectively teach a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field of technology how to make and use the invention that is protected by the patent.
With respect to patents on software-related inventions, this means that the patent must disclose enough information to enable the softwareprogrammer of ordinary skill to recreate the invention protected by the patentclaims.
No Software Patents !(Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
The Commission and EPO proposed that software and business method patents are needed in Europe, and for that reason the law (European Patent Convention) must be changed.
The Community Patent plan doesn't even mention the subject of software, although, make no mistake about it, softwarepatentability is one of the main drivers of these plans.
Instead of directly imposing softwarepatentability, the proposal is now to remove the patent system even further from legislative review by any democratically elected parliament.
The issue of softwarepatentability is an important topic because it affects the environment in which programmers and designers work, software innovation, the health of the software industry, and U.S. competitiveness.
Patents have a long history (see sidebar), Most of the concerns about patents raised by the League have been raised long ago in the context of other technologies and addressed in case law and legislation and have stood the test of time.
Softwarepatents have unique problems: prior art libraries are limited, the search classification system was designed for hardware patents, few computer scientists are examiners.
Opponents said, if passed, the bill would lead to the patenting of software which would jeopardise the prospects of small firms and open source developers.
The bill was intended to sweep away individual EU nations' patent dispute systems in favour of one common procedure.
Dr John Collins, a partner at patent attorney Marks & Clerk said the decision was not a victory for opponents of softwarepatents.
The only reason we don't have softwarepatents in Europe is because of the efforts of activists protesting and lobbying against them.
Contact a member of JURI with your concerns about softwarepatents and your support for a restart of the softwarepatent directive.
Large software companies employ people to do nothing but patent lobbying, so we need to support those people who are opposing them as much as possible.
Suppose a bunch of big software companies (perhaps led by Oracle, who's already taken the point on this) were to form PATO--Patent And Technology Organisation--and contribute all their current softwarepatents, and all new softwarepatents they were granted as long as they remained a member of PATO, to its ``cross-licensing pool''.
Once a load of companies and patents are in the pool, this will be a deterrent equivalent to a couple thousand MIRVs in silos--odds are that any potential plaintiff will be more vulnerable to 10 or 20 PATO patents than the PATO member is to one patent from the aggressor.
Today, most software companies are patenting everything in sight purely to cover their asses, without the least intention of enforcing their patents or looking at them as a source of revenue.
We explain the state of play regarding state-granted idea monopolies, specially in the context of the draft directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions" (softwarepatent directive), which has become a test case on the extent to which parliaments have a say in contemporary European legislation.
Patent administration officials have used the pretext of TRIPs adaptation to suddenly, in a unilateral administrative act, declare softwarepatents valid by law, subject to Parliament approval in the first half of 2005.
The Indian officials have shown themselves to be master pupils of their European counterparts, and critical reporting by the media has been even weaker than in Europe.
With the PatentEase Deluxe program, you can draft your own patent application and file it in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) without the aid of a patent attorney or patent agent.
is a unique software program designed to assist inventor in drafting and filing a "provisional" patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by taking advantage of a relatively new type of patent application – the "provisional" patent application.
PatentHunter 2.0 is a software program that helps patent attorneys, businesses and inventors search, download and manage United States and foreign patents.
www.inventnet.com /software.html (511 words)
Software Patent Index (BitLaw)(Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
A discussion on basic patentlaw is found in the Patent Section of BitLaw.
By David R. Syrowik and Roland J. Cole writing for the SoftwarePatent Institute.
SoftwarePatent Institute: Information on softwarepatents and database of software technology.
The directive as voted by the whole European Parliament (1st reading) however, makes sure these patents remain what they are today: examples of the EPO's drift towards unlimited patentability, without any legal value whatsoever.
A high quality A0 version of this image, as well as versions in many other languages, are also available (see "patented webshop" section).
I am concerned by current plans to legalise softwarepatents in Europe, considering their damaging effect on innovation and competition.
I am concerned by the current track record of abuses from the European Patent Office, especially by their tendency to abuse their judicial power to extend the scope of patentability.
I urge decisionmakers at all levels in Europe to reconsider their current plans and to make sure patents are not abused to prohibit or restrict the dissemination of computer programs and intellectual methods.
Contains all the materials needed to file your own complete patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Unlike other patentsoftware that prepares only a provisional application, a patent application prepared with PatentPro is reviewed by a trained Examiner at the Patent Office who conducts a prior art search for you.
Check out the only software that has obtained its users issued utility patents--not just a filing receipt that says patent pending!
Unisys U.S. LZW Patent No. 4,558,302 expired on June 20, 2003, the counterpart patents in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy expired on June 18, 2004, the Japanese counterpart patents expired on June 20, 2004 and the counterpart Canadian patent expired on July 7, 2004.
Unisys Corporation holds and has patents pending on a number of improvements on the inventionsclaimed in the above-expired patents. Information on these improvement patents and terms under which they may be licensed can be obtained by contacting the following:
Via facsimile, send inquiries to Welch Patent Licensing Department at