ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Dan Ravicher on software patents"
(→External links: <!-- LINK BROKEN - TRY ASKING FSF? *) |
(→2007 presentation in South Africa: {{also|State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998}}) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
"''Pre July 23rd 1998, there were no pure software patents in the United States. Basically the state of affairs that you [in South Africa] have today. The patent office was routinely rejecting applications for pure software because they believed that, under the law and under current jurisprudence, that software patents were not eligible for patent protection. Then in 1998, the Federal Circuit ruled in the State Street case that software ''per se'' could be patentable, and in fact anything could be patentable. This is a case that also dealt with business method patents. So, you can see a dramatic increase - although there was a steady slope of increase in the 80s and early 90s - you can see that there was a gigantic jump, relatively speaking, when the decision was made...''"<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3</ref> | "''Pre July 23rd 1998, there were no pure software patents in the United States. Basically the state of affairs that you [in South Africa] have today. The patent office was routinely rejecting applications for pure software because they believed that, under the law and under current jurisprudence, that software patents were not eligible for patent protection. Then in 1998, the Federal Circuit ruled in the State Street case that software ''per se'' could be patentable, and in fact anything could be patentable. This is a case that also dealt with business method patents. So, you can see a dramatic increase - although there was a steady slope of increase in the 80s and early 90s - you can see that there was a gigantic jump, relatively speaking, when the decision was made...''"<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3</ref> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{also|State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998}} | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
* [http://nic.suzor.com/2006/03/18/qut-open-innovation-roundtable/ Interview audio], 2006 | * [http://nic.suzor.com/2006/03/18/qut-open-innovation-roundtable/ Interview audio], 2006 | ||
* Two short audio presentations: [http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/audio/claims.mp3 What are claims?] and [http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/audio/invention_dates.mp3 How to determine invention date?] | * Two short audio presentations: [http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/audio/claims.mp3 What are claims?] and [http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/audio/invention_dates.mp3 How to determine invention date?] | ||
| + | * [http://www.zdnet.com.au/fsf-lawyer-recommends-express-patent-license-for-gpl-bsd-139165587.htm FSF lawyer recommends express patent license for GPL, BSD], 5 Nov 2004, '''ZDNet''' | ||
<!-- LINK BROKEN - TRY ASKING FSF? * [https://www.fsf.org/licensing/seminar-materials/2005nyc/implied-patent-grant-slides.pdf Implied patent grant], slides, 2005 --> | <!-- LINK BROKEN - TRY ASKING FSF? * [https://www.fsf.org/licensing/seminar-materials/2005nyc/implied-patent-grant-slides.pdf Implied patent grant], slides, 2005 --> | ||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 28 May 2012
Daniel Ravicher is a patent lawyer who supports abolition of software patents. He is the Executive Director of Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and Legal Director of Software Freedom Law Center.
Ravicher was also involved in Open Source Risk Management.
2007 presentation in South Africa
"Pre July 23rd 1998, there were no pure software patents in the United States. Basically the state of affairs that you [in South Africa] have today. The patent office was routinely rejecting applications for pure software because they believed that, under the law and under current jurisprudence, that software patents were not eligible for patent protection. Then in 1998, the Federal Circuit ruled in the State Street case that software per se could be patentable, and in fact anything could be patentable. This is a case that also dealt with business method patents. So, you can see a dramatic increase - although there was a steady slope of increase in the 80s and early 90s - you can see that there was a gigantic jump, relatively speaking, when the decision was made..."[1]
External links
- Dan Ravicher’s Bilski Rundown (transcript), 28 June 2010, from this audio interview
- http://www.pubpat.org/ftisaswptpresentation.htm - a 2007 presentation - audio and slides
- http://www.ip.qut.edu.au/2006-08-innovation-ravicher - audio and slides about GPLv3
- http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/17459/ a 2007 interview
- Patents and Free Software, slides, 2005
- Interview, discussing PubPat, 2003
- Patents - Why Free/Open Source Software Might Have Less to Fear than Non-Free Software, September 2004
- Interview "Ask Slashdot", June 2001
- How to Find Prior Art Tutorial, audio and slides
- Interview audio, 2006
- Two short audio presentations: What are claims? and How to determine invention date?
- FSF lawyer recommends express patent license for GPL, BSD, 5 Nov 2004, ZDNet
