en.swpat.org is a public wiki. You can edit it. It may contain statements that End Software Patents does not endorse.
Sitemap • Countries • Why abolish software patents? • Studies • Case law • Patent office case law • Lawsuits
From en.swpat.org
- Brazilian patent office software patent consultation
- “Software patents don’t scale”
- New ESP Australia video plus committee hearing recording
- EU legal advisors: owning software ideas detrimental to progress
- Study calculates economic harm from patent trolls
- ESP Australia presentation recording
- Petition This American Life to use Ogg Vorbis
* Welcome to the End Software Patents public wiki *
Here you'll find information to assist campaigns against software patents.
You're also invited to contribute: all pages are publicly editable.
Getting started: finding things on en.swpat.org • Discuss this wiki • Why abolish software patents
Don't know where to add something? Put it on this list: links to be processed.
Countries and regions: Argentina • Australia • Belgium • Brazil • Canada • Chile • China, People's Republic of • Costa Rica • Cuba • Denmark • Europe • Finland • France • Germany • India • Ireland • Israel • Japan • Malaysia • Mexico • New Zealand • Philippines • Poland • Russia • South Africa • South Korea • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • USA • United Kingdom • Uruguay • Venezuela
[edit] Why abolish software patents
- All businesses are targets
- Antitrust doesn't work
- Blocking innovation and research
- Blocking useful freedoms
- Blocks competing software, reducing choice
- Breaks software distribution methods
- Controlling entire markets
- Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
- Costs of the patent system to governments
- Examples of use for sabotage
- Freedom of expression
- Harm to standards
- Harms to education
- Hindering competition, obstructing the free market
- Incompatible timespans
- Infringement is unavoidable
- Insurance against patent litigation doesn't work
- Invalid patents remain unchallenged
- Jobs and skills
- Just a Use of the Patented General Purpose Computer
- Low risk
- Patent ambush
- Patent trolls
- Publishing information is made dangerous
- Software is math
- Software is too abstract, patent quality is bad
- Software patents harm SMEs
- Software progress happens without patents
- Speculation
- The disclosure is useless
- The failing solutions are expensive
- Inequality between small and large patent holders
- (See also: Category:Arguments and list of arguments)
[edit] Dispelling myths
- Protecting small inventors myth
- Some SMEs like software patents myth
- Patent standards here are higher than the USA
[edit] Partial steps toward our goal
[edit] Insufficient and failing remedies
The following are not solutions. None will solve the problem, many are inefficient wastes of time, and some even make the situation worse.
Insufficient and failing remedies:
- Defensive patent pools
- Prior art database including "defensive publication"
- Patent clauses in software licences
- Community patent review
- Invalidate the most harmful
- Raising examination standards
- Defensive patenting
- Changing company patent policy
- Insurance against patent litigation doesn't work
- Antitrust doesn't work
- Competition law defence
- (See also: Category:Non-solutions)
[edit] Campaigning notes
- Organising a campaign
- Formulating arguments
- Making leaflets
- What not to suggest: Insufficient and failing remedies
[edit] Helping out
- Links to be processed
- Ideas for info to gather
- Please help find these documents
- Talk:Discuss this wiki
- There's a sandbox page for test edits
- Category:En.swpat.org
[edit] Specific domains
- micro-blogging patents
- audio-video patents
- XML patents
- Webpage and web service patents
- Image processing patents
- HTML5 and video patents
- Harm to standards
[edit] Unsorted
- Corruption and bullying
- Free software
- Legal wordings
- List of recordings and transcripts
- Patent promises
- Patents possibly violated by swpat.org
- Related Wikipedia articles
- Should the whole patent system be axed?
- Sources of software patent news
- Technical solutions, not technical problems
- Timeline
- Webpages that disappeared
- Which sectors are for and against
- Who lobbied for software patents
- Why software is different
- Patent lawyer
- Patent non-aggression pacts
[edit] Do our proposals exclude this from patentability?
- Anti-lock braking example (no)
- mp3 audio example (yes)
- digital camera image processing example (yes)
- Other analyses of the patentability of specific ideas
[edit] Context and introductions
- General introduction
- Analogies
- Choosing words to use in legal proposals
- Terminology recommendations
- Criteria for patentability - What is patentable?
- Do software patents exist in my area?
- Searching for patents
- Reading case law
- Invention as a whole
- Patentable subject matter
- Software patents
- Technical solutions, not technical problems
- Patenting software in ROM
- Glossary
[edit] Court ruling analyses
Ordered per region, then newest first. (Also: Cat:Court rulings)
Australia: (overview)
Canada: (overview)
EUCJ:
France:
Germany: (overview)
Japan:
Israel: (overview)
Netherlands:
UK: (overview)
- Halliburton ruling by UK High Court on 5 October 2011
- Gemstar ruling by UK High Court on 27 November 2009
- Symbian ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 8 October 2008
- Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006
USA: (overview)
- Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011
- Bilski ruling by US Supreme Court on 9 November 2009
- In re Bilski ruling by US CAFC on 30 October 2008
- Quanta v. LGE ruling by US Supreme Court on 9 June 2008
- KSR v. Teleflex ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007
- Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007
- EBay v. MercExchange ruling by US Supreme Court on 15 May 2006
- ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999
- State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998
- In re Lowry ruling by US CAFC on 26 August 1994
- In re Alappat ruling by US Supreme Court on 29 July 1994
- Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981
- Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978
- Gottschalk v. Benson ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 November 1972
[edit] Patent office decisions
Ordered per patent office, then newest first.
Australia: (overview)
Canada: (overview)
European Patent Office: (overview)
France: (overview)
India: (overview)
Israel: (overview)
Japan: (overview)
New Zealand: (overview)
South Africa: (overview)
UK: (overview)
USA: (overview)
[edit] Organisations
Acacia • Adobe • AIPLA • AIPPI • Alcatel-Lucent • Amazon • Apple • April • BEUC • Blackboard • Borland • c4c • Canonical • CPTN • CEA-PME • Dell • Digitude Innovations • EFF • End Software Patents • Eolas • FFII • FSF • FSFE • Ericsson • Google • Hewlett-Packard • HTC • IBM • IEEE-USA • Intel • Intellectual Ventures • IPAC • LPF • LGE • Lodsys • MacroSolve • Microsoft • Motorola • MPEG LA • Nokia • Novell • NTP • NZICT • OIN • Opera • Oracle • Philips • Red Hat • Samsung • SAP • SGI • Siemens • SFLC • Sony • Sun • SUEPO • Symantec • TiVo • UEAPME • W3C • Webvention • WIPO • Yahoo • Xerox and Fuji Xerox
- (See also: Category:Organisations)
[edit] International agreements
[edit] Specific patents and infringement suits
- Xerox vs Google and Yahoo, 2010
- Software Tree vs Red Hat, 2009
- Microsoft vs TomTom, 2008
- Trend Micro vs Barracuda, 2008
- Microsoft vs AT&T, 2006
- Uniloc vs Microsoft, 2009
- Fotomedia Technologies vs the World 2009
- Example software patents
[edit] Papers, studies, books
- Books about software and patents
- Studies on economics and innovation
- Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, Andrew Gowers for HM Treasury UK, December 2006
- Rethinking the European ICT agenda, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, September 2004
- Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity, Deutsche Bank Research, June 2004
- An Empirical Look at Software Patents, Bessen and Hunt, March 2004
- US FTC report on innovation, US Federal Trade Commission, October 2003
- Network Competition Through Regulation report, German Monopoly Commission, 2002
- The EuroLinux petition
- Studies by concerned parties:
[edit] Statements
[edit] People
Michel Barnier • Tim Berners Lee • James Bessen • Dan Bricklin • John Carmack • Brad Feld • Andy Grove • Erik Josefsson • Elena Kagan • Brian Kahin • David A. Kennedy • Ben Klemens • Donald Knuth • Bradley Kuhn • Timothy B. Lee • Philip Leith • David Martin • Michael Meurer • Eben Moglen • Ciarán O'Riordan • François Pellegrini • Bruce Perens • Dan Ravicher • Giles Sutherland Rich • Pamela Samuelson • Richard Stallman • Ben Sturmfels • Linus Torvalds • Eric Von Hippel • Mark Webbink • David A. Wheeler
