IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

Utils

The articles and comments on this site reflect the views and opinions of their authors and do not represent an official statement by the FFII or the admins of this site. All content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License.

This is innovation?

Recent stories

11 May 2010 15:01 — "No Power for the Parliament" warns EPO examiners association: The Staff Union of the EPO sent a letter to the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, warning of risks integrated into the accession of the European Union to the European Patent Convention (EPC). They warn that the European Parliament can be circumvented as a legislator in patent law. (Comments: 39)

10 Feb 2010 16:11 — Alvaro asks 9 questions to the Commission about ACTA, including 3 strikes and transparency: Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) has asked 9 questions about ACTA, including 3 strikes and transparency, or the access by the INTA committee to the drafts documents. He is also asking about changes to substantive patent law (read software patents here). (Comments: 29)

09 Feb 2010 12:05 — Members of European Parliaments ask when they will receive the ACTA documents: Some Member of the European Parliament have asked when they will receive the ACTA documents, mentioning the Lisbon Treaty article 218 which says that the Parliament have to be "fully informed" of the negotiations. The new trade commissioner Karel DeGucht said previously that the Lisbon Treaty do not apply to ACTA, because the confidentiality of the talks were negotiated before. (Comments: 32)

07 Oct 2009 12:14 — FFII and IP Justice file Bilski Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Foundation for a Free Informational Infrastructure (FFII) and IP Justice filed an Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case Bilski v. Kappos is expected to become a landmark ruling on the future of the U.S. patent system. The joint Brief explains the interlink of software and business methods, and points out alternatives to the so called Machine-or-Transformation test used for categorizing patents. (Comments: 9)

02 Sep 2009 22:30 — IBM says software patents drive OSS development: In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that "patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development." (Comments: 87)

08 Jul 2009 11:54 — What's wrong with the United Patent Litigation System (UPLS)?: A journalist of WorldIPReview recently asked FFII what were its views of the proposed United Patent Litigation System (UPLS), which is now being questioned by the Council in a submission to the ECJ. FFII had already published a press release mentioning the new push for software patents in Europe via a centralised and trusted court. (Comments: 0)

03 Jul 2009 17:34 — The Bilski test was invented by IBM: By reading the Amicus Brief of IBM to the CAFC, it is pretty clear that the machine tranformation test which allows software patents and ban business method patents was invented by IBM lawyers. (Comments: 220)

22 Jun 2009 12:34 — USPTO refuses to disclose Bilski's pending patent application: The US Supreme Court will soon hear Bilski on why software and business method patents are so good for the US economy. I was trying to find out where the Bilski's pending patent application was published, and I ended up writing to the new USPTO President and ex-IBM David Kappos. I finally got an answer from a USPTO official that the Bilski's pending patent application cannot be seen by the public. (Comments: 38)

09 Jun 2009 10:49 — Patent expert Alison Crofts says EPLA is pushed by pro-software patents lobby: In its edition of IP Value 2007, the Intellectual Asset Magazine (IAM) was publishing an article about the Reform of European Patent System, where an expert mentions that the push for the EPLA is coming from the pro-software patents lobby. (Comments: 5)

04 Jun 2009 20:24 — European Patent Office refuses spanish amicus brief against software patents: Alberto Barrionuevo, CEO of the small spanish software company OpenTIA and ex-president of the FFII, had submitted an amicus brief to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in spanish. The European Patent Office has notified him that they are refusing his letter because it was not written in one of the 3 official languages of the EPO. (Comments: 1)

12 May 2009 13:30 — European Commission pushes for software patents via a trusted court: The European Commission is pushing for software patents via a centralised trusted patent court that would be created with the United Patent Litigation System (UPLS), an international treaty that would remove national courts. This court system would be shielded against any review by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Thus patent judges would have the last word on software patents. (Comments: 27)

22 Apr 2009 11:25 — Conference on "Make software patents work for SMEs": The European Commission is organising a conference dedicated to "Make IPR work for SMEs" next Monday in Brussels. You can here submit your questions for next Monday on how to "Make software patents work for SMEs". (Comments: 49)

Fold

IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

ggiedke 26 May 2010 19:58

"This decision certainly is not a landmark ruling setting out a major change in patent law for computer-implemented inventions in Germany. It's rather a continuation of a long line of thinking by the German courts. It is interesting because it is one of several cases in which the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) has given applicants leave to appeal in order to clarify the law in Germany on computer-implemented patents. […] The court confirms previous case law that an invention is technical when the invention relates to the functioning of a computer system and allows the interworking of the computer system's elements. However, the court also confirms that this does not mean that all computer-implemented inventions are per se patentable. On the contrary, it emphasises that merely using a computer program does not confer patentability."

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=8c78d4b3-2c14-45e8-98af-9ebb0278d0ee

Reply Options

Unfold IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert by

ggiedke, 26 May 2010 19:58

Fold

Re: IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

ggiedke 26 May 2010 20:07

for those who are late to the story, here's some links on the German court's decision:

eWeek Europe: "German Court Declares Software Patents Legal"
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/german-court-declares-software-patents-legal-7211

Peter Gerwinski's summary (in german only):
http://patinfo.ffii.org/bgh2010.de.html

Reply Options

Unfold Re: IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert by

ggiedke, 26 May 2010 20:07

Fold

Re: IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

ggiedke 01 Jun 2010 07:27

patent attorney A. Horns explains the patent in question and the Court's decision in his ipjur-Blog:
http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/153-German-Supreme-Court-on-Patents-on-Computer-Implemented-Inventions.html#extended

Reply Options

Unfold Re: IAMBlog: German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert by

ggiedke, 01 Jun 2010 07:27

Digital Majority

Navigation

Utils

This is innovation?

Bookmark

Recent stories