ADDING LINKS IS TEMPORARILY BLOCKED - if you want to add a link, just put a space in it so that it doesn't work. The admin will then fix the link for you very quickly. This will be fixed as soon as I have the new spam blocking system in place.

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


USPTO 2010 consultation

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(This consultation is closed. ESP's submission is online.)

The USPTO is accepting comments until 27 September 2010 on their proposed examiner guidelines for interpreting the Supreme Court's recent Bilski decision. ESP is asking for your help[1] in analysing these texts and brainstorming on what points to highlight when ESP sends the USPTO its comment.

Contents

[edit] The main documents

[edit] How to make a submission

You can make a submission by post or email, but the USPTO says they prefer email. The address is: Bilski_Guidance@uspto.gov

Submissions can be made up to and including Monday the 27th, 2010.

[edit] What we should argue for

The USPTO says that, compared to the USPTO's previous guidelines, the Supreme Court's decision only affects a few rare cases, sometimes broadening patentability, sometimes narrowing it. We argue that:

  • It affects many cases, not just a rare few
  • The effects are pretty much always to narrow patentability
  • The court's decision shows that the USPTO's previous guidelines were already granting too many software patents
    • The district court rulings that threw patents out based on the CAFC's Bilski ruling might give insight on this

[edit] Analysis of the interim guideline RFC

Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/

[edit] Analysis of the Quick Reference Sheet

Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-ref-sheet/

[edit] Arguments worth using

Ideas can be found at Why abolish software patents? The USPTO will want to focus on legal aspects and interpretations. To make "common good" arguments, we'd have to show clearly how the USPTO is obliged to listen to that type of argument.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] External links

(Note: the main official documents are linked in the first paragraph of this article.)

[edit] Submissions

[edit] References

  1. http://campaigns.fsf.org/pipermail/esp-action-alert/2010-August/000023.html


This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)