Difference between revisions of "Main Page"
m (Reverted edits by Susannamauldin (talk) to last revision by Marjoriesteele) |
(Undo revision 37578 by CarleyLundberg (talk)) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
<!-- add news.swpat.org stories at en.swpat.org/wiki/Template:News_feed --><!-- Left hand column --> | <!-- add news.swpat.org stories at en.swpat.org/wiki/Template:News_feed --><!-- Left hand column --> | ||
<div style="float: left; width: 49%;"> | <div style="float: left; width: 49%;"> | ||
− | + | ==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]] | ||
+ | * [[Inequality between small and large patent holders]] | ||
+ | * [[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]] (Small and Medium Enterprises) | ||
+ | * [[Software progress happens without patents]] | ||
+ | * [[Speculation]] | ||
+ | * [[The disclosure is useless]] | ||
+ | * [[The failing solutions are expensive]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{also|:Category:Arguments|list of arguments}} | ||
==Dispelling myths== | ==Dispelling myths== | ||
Line 214: | Line 236: | ||
[[Motorola]] • | [[Motorola]] • | ||
[[MPEG LA]] • | [[MPEG LA]] • | ||
+ | [[Newegg]] • | ||
[[Nokia]] • | [[Nokia]] • | ||
[[Novell]] • | [[Novell]] • |
Revision as of 11:49, 7 October 2015
- About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core
- US Supreme Court reining in software patents (Alice v. CLS)
- Is Soverain Software a patent troll? Yes
- Help needed documenting events of May 2013
- What can we ask of the USPTO?
- What’s wrong with the EU unitary patent?
- Good “End Software Patents” video – not by us
- Stallman: completely shielding software instead of exempting it
* Welcome to the ESP Wiki *
(For End Software Patents' campaign site, see http://endsoftpatents.org)
Here you'll find information to assist campaigns against software patents.
You're also invited to contribute: all 670 pages are publicly editable.
(What's new? See: Recent Changes)
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
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
- Inequality between small and large patent holders
- 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 (Small and Medium Enterprises)
- Software progress happens without patents
- Speculation
- The disclosure is useless
- The failing solutions are expensive
- See also: Category:Arguments and list of arguments
Dispelling myths
- Protecting small inventors myth
- Some SMEs like software patents myth
- Patent standards here are higher than the USA
- The win-win patent myth
Partial steps toward our goal
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
Campaigning notes
- Organising a campaign
- Formulating arguments
- Making leaflets
- What not to suggest: Insufficient and failing remedies
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
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
Unsorted
- Cablegate info on software patents
- Corruption and bullying
- Free software
- Legal wordings
- List of recordings and transcripts
- Patent lawyer
- Patent non-aggression pacts
- Patent promises
- Patents possibly violated by swpat.org
- Related Wikipedia articles
- Should the whole patent system be axed?
- Sources of software patent news
- Specialised patent court
- Technical solutions, not technical problems
- Timeline
- Webpages that disappeared
- Which sectors are for and against
- Who lobbied for software patents
- Why software is different
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
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
Court ruling analyses
Ordered per region, then newest first. (Also: Cat:Court rulings)
Australia: (overview)
Canada: (overview)
EUCJ:
France:
Germany: (overview) (category)
- Motorola Mobility v. Apple ruling by Mannheim Regional Court on 9 December 2011
- Siemens ruling by German BGH on 22 April 2010
- Microsoft FAT ruling by German BGH on 20 April 2010
Japan:
Israel: (overview)
Netherlands:
- Apple ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 3 May 2013
- 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
- Alice v. CLS Bank ruling by US Supreme Court on 19 June 2014
- CLS Bank v. Alice ruling by US CAFC on 8 May 2013
- In re Spansion by US Third Circuit on 21 December 2012
- Mayo ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 March 2012
- 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
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)
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 • Newegg • Nokia • Novell • NTP • NZICT • OIN • Opera • Oracle • Philips • Red Hat • Rockstar • Samsung • SAP • SGI • Siemens • SFLC • Sony • Sun • SUEPO • Symantec • TiVo • UEAPME • Uniloc • US govt • W3C • Webvention • WIPO • Yahoo • Xerox and Fuji Xerox
- See also: Category:Organisations
International agreements
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
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:
Statements
People
Michel Barnier • Tim Berners Lee • James Bessen • Dan Bricklin • John Carmack • Brad Feld • Bill Gates • Andy Grove • Erik Josefsson • Elena Kagan • Brian Kahin • David A. Kennedy • Ben Klemens • Donald Knuth • Bradley Kuhn • Timothy B. Lee • Philip Leith • David Martin • Florian Mueller • Michael Meurer • Eben Moglen • Ciarán O'Riordan • François Pellegrini • Bruce Perens • Simon Phipps • Richard Posner • Dan Ravicher • Giles Sutherland Rich • Pamela Samuelson • Richard Stallman • Ben Sturmfels • Linus Torvalds • Eric Von Hippel • Mark Webbink • David A. Wheeler