ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Long pages
Showing below up to 500 results in range #1 to #500.
View (previous 500 | next 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
- (hist) 201001 acta.pdf as text [191,225 bytes]
- (hist) ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text [89,892 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/日本語 (Japanese) [69,306 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Ελληνικά (Greek) [66,313 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Русский (Russian) [56,899 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Persian [54,299 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Français (French) [47,433 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/English [44,458 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/עברית (Hebrew) [40,708 bytes]
- (hist) Oracle v. Google (2010, USA) [39,673 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Українська (Ukrainian) [38,244 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Italiano (Italian) [37,263 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Español-Bolivia (Spanish) [35,010 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Română (Romanian) [34,980 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/한국어 (Korean) [34,869 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Español (Spanish) [32,926 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/简体中文 (Simplified Chinese) [32,158 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Polski (Polish) [31,920 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Suomi (Finnish) [31,798 bytes]
- (hist) Harmonization of European patent systems [28,690 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Svenska (Swedish) [27,187 bytes]
- (hist) Who should see Patent Absurdity in 2010 [25,075 bytes]
- (hist) Alice v. CLS Bank ruling by US Supreme Court on 19 June 2014 [24,523 bytes]
- (hist) Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08 [23,547 bytes]
- (hist) Shielding software from litigation [21,190 bytes]
- (hist) Why abolish software patents [21,034 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski brainstorming [20,504 bytes]
- (hist) Australian consultation responses 2009 [19,224 bytes]
- (hist) Australia [18,130 bytes]
- (hist) Links to be processed [16,745 bytes]
- (hist) Workspace: A house that computes (analogy) [16,510 bytes]
- (hist) I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA) [15,415 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft [14,761 bytes]
- (hist) Patents Act 2013 [14,748 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Cooperation Treaty [13,930 bytes]
- (hist) Another Parable of the Cave: progress in knowledge untethered to scarcities is promoted through increased access [13,591 bytes]
- (hist) Patent troll [13,202 bytes]
- (hist) Why software is different [13,061 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Português do Brasil (Brazilian Portuguese) [12,753 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski ruling by US Supreme Court on 28 June 2010 [12,436 bytes]
- (hist) Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview [12,413 bytes]
- (hist) Patent clauses in software licenses [12,016 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Dansk (Danish) [11,485 bytes]
- (hist) Asymmetric numeral systems [11,281 bytes]
- (hist) Choosing words to use in legal proposals [11,183 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs [10,982 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Deutsch (German) [10,892 bytes]
- (hist) Alice v. CLS Bank (2012, USA) [10,633 bytes]
- (hist) Letter to the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on standard-essential patents [10,309 bytes]
- (hist) Open Invention Network [10,281 bytes]
- (hist) Martin Goetz [10,234 bytes]
- (hist) Case law in Germany [10,103 bytes]
- (hist) Case law in the UK [9,889 bytes]
- (hist) Google [9,820 bytes]
- (hist) MPEG LA [9,614 bytes]
- (hist) TRIPS Agreement [9,586 bytes]
- (hist) Free software projects harmed by software patents [9,367 bytes]
- (hist) Unified Patent Court [9,290 bytes]
- (hist) Reducing patent duration [9,233 bytes]
- (hist) IBM and MS deciding New Zealand legislation [9,175 bytes]
- (hist) Symbian ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 8 October 2008 [9,172 bytes]
- (hist) Freedom of expression [8,948 bytes]
- (hist) Analogies [8,776 bytes]
- (hist) How to read patents [8,665 bytes]
- (hist) European Patent Convention [8,608 bytes]
- (hist) In re Bilski ruling by US CAFC on 30 October 2008 [8,423 bytes]
- (hist) Free software [8,231 bytes]
- (hist) Legislation in the USA [8,142 bytes]
- (hist) European Patent Office [8,077 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski's patent application text [8,074 bytes]
- (hist) Example software patents [8,067 bytes]
- (hist) Harm caused by all types of patents [8,007 bytes]
- (hist) United Patent Litigation System [7,985 bytes]
- (hist) Mayo ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 March 2012 [7,919 bytes]
- (hist) MPL and patents [7,893 bytes]
- (hist) Amazon ruling by Canadian Federal Court on 14 October 2010 [7,857 bytes]
- (hist) Supreme Court of the United States [7,831 bytes]
- (hist) CSIRO wifi patent [7,758 bytes]
- (hist) ESP's brief for EPO referral G3-08 [7,752 bytes]
- (hist) EPO case law [7,747 bytes]
- (hist) Electronic Frontier Foundation [7,746 bytes]
- (hist) Drafting the next US amicus brief [7,712 bytes]
- (hist) Main Page [7,690 bytes]
- (hist) Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [7,587 bytes]
- (hist) In re Alappat ruling by US CAFC on 29 July 1994 [7,427 bytes]
- (hist) Apple Inc. [7,353 bytes]
- (hist) Israel [7,297 bytes]
- (hist) India [7,296 bytes]
- (hist) Implicit patent licence [7,201 bytes]
- (hist) Java and patents [7,149 bytes]
- (hist) Eurasian Patent Convention [6,999 bytes]
- (hist) Raising examination standards [6,898 bytes]
- (hist) Amazon's one-click shopping patent [6,864 bytes]
- (hist) .NET, C-sharp, and Mono [6,863 bytes]
- (hist) WebM, VP8 and VP9 [6,732 bytes]
- (hist) NetApp's filesystem patents [6,719 bytes]
- (hist) Red Hat [6,697 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007 [6,622 bytes]
- (hist) Richard Posner on software patents [6,583 bytes]
- (hist) Studies on economics and innovation [6,458 bytes]
- (hist) The value of promises and estoppel defences [6,420 bytes]
- (hist) Software does not make a computer a new machine [6,399 bytes]
- (hist) Timothy B. Lee on software patents [6,370 bytes]
- (hist) EPO EBoA referral G3-08 [6,368 bytes]
- (hist) Settled expectations [6,337 bytes]
- (hist) Infringement is unavoidable and clearance is impossible [6,327 bytes]
- (hist) Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006 [6,316 bytes]
- (hist) United States Patent and Trademark Office [6,296 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA) [6,134 bytes]
- (hist) Software is math [6,105 bytes]
- (hist) United States International Trade Commission [6,059 bytes]
- (hist) Motorola v. Apple (2010, USA) [5,997 bytes]
- (hist) Software patents exist in Europe, kinda [5,981 bytes]
- (hist) U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. many (2009, USA) [5,948 bytes]
- (hist) News 2010 [5,937 bytes]
- (hist) ESP report February 2011 [5,930 bytes]
- (hist) Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [5,880 bytes]
- (hist) Forum shopping [5,822 bytes]
- (hist) Examples of use for sabotage [5,810 bytes]
- (hist) US government [5,776 bytes]
- (hist) Category tree [5,698 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft royalty demands for Android and other non-Microsoft software [5,690 bytes]
- (hist) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [5,614 bytes]
- (hist) Open letter on Australian software patents [5,600 bytes]
- (hist) CPTN Holdings LLC [5,582 bytes]
- (hist) Harm to standards and compatibility [5,412 bytes]
- (hist) IBM v. TurboHercules in 2010 [5,411 bytes]
- (hist) In re Spansion by US Third Circuit on 21 December 2012 [5,403 bytes]
- (hist) Cost of getting patents and maintaining them [5,330 bytes]
- (hist) USA patent courts and appeals [5,307 bytes]
- (hist) United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office [5,276 bytes]
- (hist) FRAND [5,232 bytes]
- (hist) Germany [5,219 bytes]
- (hist) Audio-video patents [5,191 bytes]
- (hist) State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998 [5,181 bytes]
- (hist) EPO G3-08 brainstorming [5,167 bytes]
- (hist) Africa [5,160 bytes]
- (hist) France [5,144 bytes]
- (hist) Apple v. HTC (2010, USA) [5,095 bytes]
- (hist) Novell [5,063 bytes]
- (hist) Japan [5,061 bytes]
- (hist) Phone patent litigation [5,054 bytes]
- (hist) Intellectual Ventures [5,053 bytes]
- (hist) Criteria for patentability [5,025 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft FAT patents [5,015 bytes]
- (hist) John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents [4,987 bytes]
- (hist) Suggestions for the USPTO in 2013 [4,973 bytes]
- (hist) ACTA and software patents [4,930 bytes]
- (hist) SAS ruling by EU Court of Justice on 2 May 2012 [4,916 bytes]
- (hist) EU software patents directive [4,911 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants [4,892 bytes]
- (hist) Specialised patent court [4,891 bytes]
- (hist) German patent courts and appeals [4,884 bytes]
- (hist) Patent non-aggression pacts [4,862 bytes]
- (hist) Invalidating harmful patents [4,855 bytes]
- (hist) Ireland [4,839 bytes]
- (hist) European Commission answer to P-010463-12 [4,823 bytes]
- (hist) Blocking innovation and research [4,817 bytes]
- (hist) Harvard 2019 study on government technology policy effects [4,777 bytes]
- (hist) Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure [4,759 bytes]
- (hist) 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey [4,757 bytes]
- (hist) Canada [4,734 bytes]
- (hist) Statements from venture capitalists [4,714 bytes]
- (hist) IBM [4,689 bytes]
- (hist) Comparing Java to .Net and C-sharp [4,681 bytes]
- (hist) Patentability in the USA after Bilski [4,663 bytes]
- (hist) Case law in Australia [4,662 bytes]
- (hist) Rockstar Consortium and the Nortel patents [4,661 bytes]
- (hist) USPTO 2010 consultation [4,651 bytes]
- (hist) Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property" [4,611 bytes]
- (hist) Searching for patents [4,610 bytes]
- (hist) SAP [4,558 bytes]
- (hist) Cost of the patent system to governments [4,545 bytes]
- (hist) Andean Community [4,539 bytes]
- (hist) Alice v. CLS Bank amicus briefs [4,530 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity [4,414 bytes]
- (hist) Oracle v. SAP (2010, USA) [4,404 bytes]
- (hist) Changes in company policy over time [4,367 bytes]
- (hist) Case law in the USA [4,322 bytes]
- (hist) As such [4,320 bytes]
- (hist) OpenGL [4,262 bytes]
- (hist) Blackboard inc. [4,252 bytes]
- (hist) Software patents [4,249 bytes]
- (hist) United Kingdom [4,228 bytes]
- (hist) GNU General Public License Version 2 [4,226 bytes]
- (hist) Unitary patent [4,215 bytes]
- (hist) Oracle [4,175 bytes]
- (hist) Countries and regions [4,162 bytes]
- (hist) New Zealand [4,144 bytes]
- (hist) Disclosure is unreadable [4,107 bytes]
- (hist) Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981 [4,099 bytes]
- (hist) Please help find these documents [4,095 bytes]
- (hist) South Africa [4,084 bytes]
- (hist) Use software and functionality from 20 years ago [4,039 bytes]
- (hist) Defensive publication and prior art databases [4,031 bytes]
- (hist) Interval Licensing v. 11 big companies (2010, USA) [4,004 bytes]
- (hist) Timeline [4,003 bytes]
- (hist) Blanket patent licences and promises [3,986 bytes]
- (hist) Belgium [3,978 bytes]
- (hist) Software patents harm SMEs [3,941 bytes]
- (hist) Costly legal costs [3,930 bytes]
- (hist) Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act [3,893 bytes]
- (hist) HTML5 and video patents [3,887 bytes]
- (hist) Mp3 [3,822 bytes]
- (hist) List of lawsuits [3,820 bytes]
- (hist) Machine translation of patents [3,796 bytes]
- (hist) Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal [3,745 bytes]
- (hist) Patent review by the public [3,743 bytes]
- (hist) UK patent courts and appeals [3,742 bytes]
- (hist) Free software exception [3,695 bytes]
- (hist) Terminology recommendations [3,694 bytes]
- (hist) Acacia v. Red Hat and Novell (2010, USA) [3,653 bytes]
- (hist) America Invents Act [3,642 bytes]
- (hist) Gulf Cooperation Council [3,627 bytes]
- (hist) Pen and paper patents [3,606 bytes]
- (hist) Webpages that disappeared [3,602 bytes]
- (hist) Fake representatives of free software [3,599 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft FAT ruling by German BGH on 20 April 2010 [3,578 bytes]
- (hist) Bangui Agreement [3,529 bytes]
- (hist) Storyline and fashion patents [3,508 bytes]
- (hist) Trend Micro v. Barracuda, Fortinet (2008, USA) [3,506 bytes]
- (hist) End Software Patents [3,504 bytes]
- (hist) More than patent trolls [3,478 bytes]
- (hist) Uruguay [3,460 bytes]
- (hist) Gottschalk v. Benson ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 November 1972 [3,443 bytes]
- (hist) Calculating damages and legal fees in the USA [3,439 bytes]
- (hist) CRISPR-Cas9 [3,426 bytes]
- (hist) Bill Gates on software patents [3,417 bytes]
- (hist) Inequality between small and large patent holders [3,414 bytes]
- (hist) Current events [3,401 bytes]
- (hist) Controllable forces of nature [3,374 bytes]
- (hist) I4i v. Microsoft ruling by the US Supreme Court on 9 June 2011 [3,362 bytes]
- (hist) Consulta brasileira do escritório de patentes 2012 [3,358 bytes]
- (hist) Ogg Theora [3,347 bytes]
- (hist) Brazil [3,331 bytes]
- (hist) NZICT [3,300 bytes]
- (hist) Some SMEs like software patents myth [3,284 bytes]
- (hist) Particular machine or transformation [3,253 bytes]
- (hist) European Patent Office grants software patents [3,245 bytes]
- (hist) Antitrust law [3,242 bytes]
- (hist) Brasil [3,239 bytes]
- (hist) Minor reform proposals in the USA [3,215 bytes]
- (hist) 2008 State of Software Patents [3,208 bytes]
- (hist) Patent standards here are higher than in the USA [3,204 bytes]
- (hist) Invalid patents remain unchallenged [3,190 bytes]
- (hist) Silly patents [3,185 bytes]
- (hist) Publishing information is made dangerous [3,160 bytes]
- (hist) German parliament petition against software patents [3,156 bytes]
- (hist) List of recordings and transcripts [3,153 bytes]
- (hist) More than innovation [3,149 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft Community Promise, and the OSP [3,142 bytes]
- (hist) US FTC 2003 report on innovation [3,135 bytes]
- (hist) Sources of software patent news [3,134 bytes]
- (hist) Dan Ravicher on software patents [3,122 bytes]
- (hist) Richard Stallman on software patents [3,098 bytes]
- (hist) Means-plus-function claims [3,071 bytes]
- (hist) More than business [3,062 bytes]
- (hist) Brazilian patent office consultation 2012 [3,050 bytes]
- (hist) Patent ambush [3,047 bytes]
- (hist) Cabinet for the blind example [3,026 bytes]
- (hist) Software progress happens without patents [3,021 bytes]
- (hist) Florian Mueller on software patents [3,002 bytes]
- (hist) Intellectual Ventures v. Google (2014, USA) [2,997 bytes]
- (hist) Who owns software patents [2,993 bytes]
- (hist) Insurance against patent litigation [2,991 bytes]
- (hist) Canonical Group [2,980 bytes]
- (hist) Software patent quality worse than all other fields [2,974 bytes]
- (hist) US2886976 [2,965 bytes]
- (hist) A bubble waiting to burst [2,955 bytes]
- (hist) Low risk [2,944 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft v. TomTom (2008, USA) [2,936 bytes]
- (hist) Interoperability exception [2,888 bytes]
- (hist) Giving good presentations about software patents [2,886 bytes]
- (hist) Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011 [2,882 bytes]
- (hist) Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts [2,872 bytes]
- (hist) Consultations from government bodies and courts [2,864 bytes]
- (hist) Philips [2,846 bytes]
- (hist) Jobs and skills [2,834 bytes]
- (hist) Defensive patent pools [2,829 bytes]
- (hist) Apple v. Samsung preliminary injunction by Dutch court on 24 August 2011 [2,824 bytes]
- (hist) LG v. Sony (2010, US and EU) [2,795 bytes]
- (hist) Patent lawyers [2,792 bytes]
- (hist) CDDL and patents [2,789 bytes]
- (hist) Allied Security Trust [2,789 bytes]
- (hist) Rethinking the European ICT agenda [2,771 bytes]
- (hist) Related Wikipedia articles [2,761 bytes]
- (hist) FlightPrep v. RunwayFinder and others (2010, USA) [2,758 bytes]
- (hist) Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2008, USA) [2,748 bytes]
- (hist) Business method patents [2,737 bytes]
- (hist) CLS Bank v. Alice ruling by US CAFC on 8 May 2013 [2,720 bytes]
- (hist) Harare Protocol [2,694 bytes]
- (hist) Patent governance [2,684 bytes]
- (hist) US4050426 [2,679 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA) [2,611 bytes]
- (hist) Bilski overview [2,610 bytes]
- (hist) TLS-authz [2,610 bytes]
- (hist) President's Commission on the Patent System [2,586 bytes]
- (hist) Sun Microsystems inc. [2,568 bytes]
- (hist) League for Programming Freedom [2,562 bytes]
- (hist) Who lobbied for software patents [2,561 bytes]
- (hist) Sweden [2,561 bytes]
- (hist) Blocking competing software [2,557 bytes]
- (hist) Quanta v. LGE ruling by US Supreme Court on 9 June 2008 [2,545 bytes]
- (hist) US3182517 [2,545 bytes]
- (hist) EU 2005 proposed amendments [2,535 bytes]
- (hist) Fujitsu et. al. v. Netgear (2007, USA) [2,522 bytes]
- (hist) Case law in Canada [2,518 bytes]
- (hist) Defensive Patent License [2,505 bytes]
- (hist) Stephen Breyer (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents [2,502 bytes]
- (hist) Why focus only on software [2,487 bytes]
- (hist) EBay v. MercExchange ruling by US Supreme Court on 15 May 2006 [2,479 bytes]
- (hist) Halliburton ruling by UK High Court on 5 October 2011 [2,477 bytes]
- (hist) Mark A. Lemley on software patents [2,471 bytes]
- (hist) Design patent [2,463 bytes]
- (hist) Software patents are abstract and ambiguous [2,461 bytes]
- (hist) Do software patents exist in my area [2,460 bytes]
- (hist) Non-aggression promise to employees [2,449 bytes]
- (hist) Poland [2,446 bytes]
- (hist) Acacia Research Corporation [2,438 bytes]
- (hist) Business Software Alliance [2,432 bytes]
- (hist) Anti-lock braking example [2,415 bytes]
- (hist) Eolas v. Microsoft (2004, USA) [2,402 bytes]
- (hist) First-to-file or first-to-invent [2,392 bytes]
- (hist) 1994 USPTO software patent hearings [2,376 bytes]
- (hist) News 2009 [2,365 bytes]
- (hist) List of patents that appear invalid with reasoning [2,362 bytes]
- (hist) When Patents Attack [2,360 bytes]
- (hist) What to do if worried by a software patent [2,360 bytes]
- (hist) Suing makers of unfounded accusations [2,359 bytes]
- (hist) International agreements [2,351 bytes]
- (hist) Nokia v. HTC (2012, Germany) [2,329 bytes]
- (hist) An Empirical Look at Software Patents [2,327 bytes]
- (hist) Netherlands [2,323 bytes]
- (hist) Ciarán O'Riordan on software patents [2,321 bytes]
- (hist) Economic Parasites [2,305 bytes]
- (hist) Organising a campaign [2,292 bytes]
- (hist) Software Patents: A Time for Change [2,290 bytes]
- (hist) Software Freedom Law Center [2,284 bytes]
- (hist) Security, encryption and spam solution patents [2,277 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Absurdity/Subtitles [2,271 bytes]
- (hist) European Patent Litigation Agreement [2,258 bytes]
- (hist) US GAO 2013 report on patent litigation [2,253 bytes]
- (hist) Making leaflets [2,233 bytes]
- (hist) Canadian patent courts and appeals [2,222 bytes]
- (hist) VoloMedia's podcasting patent [2,207 bytes]
- (hist) China, People's Republic of [2,205 bytes]
- (hist) Defensive patent acquisition [2,189 bytes]
- (hist) Staff Union of the EPO [2,164 bytes]
- (hist) Groklaw [2,161 bytes]
- (hist) United States of America [2,113 bytes]
- (hist) Opera Software [2,108 bytes]
- (hist) RSA patent [2,105 bytes]
- (hist) Uniloc v. Microsoft (2009, USA) [2,100 bytes]
- (hist) Wilful infringement [2,086 bytes]
- (hist) Statements from UEAPME [2,081 bytes]
- (hist) KSR v. Teleflex ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007 [2,077 bytes]
- (hist) IEEE [2,073 bytes]
- (hist) Books about software and patents [2,068 bytes]
- (hist) Linus Torvalds on software patents [2,066 bytes]
- (hist) Duds and non-solutions [2,066 bytes]
- (hist) Harms to education [2,061 bytes]
- (hist) US7035281 [2,056 bytes]
- (hist) Software relies on incremental development [2,037 bytes]
- (hist) Cablegate info on software patents [2,036 bytes]
- (hist) InNova v. 36 companies (2010, USA) [2,026 bytes]
- (hist) Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA) [2,017 bytes]
- (hist) JPEG 2000 [2,009 bytes]
- (hist) Venturous Australia [2,008 bytes]
- (hist) Eben Moglen on software patents [1,995 bytes]
- (hist) Is resource usage technical [1,983 bytes]
- (hist) How to submit an amicus brief in the USA [1,973 bytes]
- (hist) All businesses have software patent risk [1,970 bytes]
- (hist) Small Serial Innovators: The Small Firm Contribution To Technical Change [1,969 bytes]
- (hist) US government 2011 innovation survey [1,967 bytes]
- (hist) Our goals [1,966 bytes]
- (hist) US7490593 [1,960 bytes]
- (hist) UK anti-swpat letter brainstorming 2010 [1,948 bytes]
- (hist) Patentable subject matter [1,943 bytes]
- (hist) Nokia [1,937 bytes]
- (hist) Cross-licensing [1,930 bytes]
- (hist) Statements from developers [1,927 bytes]
- (hist) G.729, G.722, and G.723.1 [1,924 bytes]
- (hist) Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas [1,923 bytes]
- (hist) Webpage and e-commerce patents [1,921 bytes]
- (hist) Tim Bray on software patents [1,913 bytes]
- (hist) European Union [1,903 bytes]
- (hist) Microsoft sells patents to OIN, 2009 [1,897 bytes]
- (hist) Finland [1,895 bytes]
- (hist) Banning software patents [1,892 bytes]
- (hist) Independent invention defence [1,882 bytes]
- (hist) Technology [1,880 bytes]
- (hist) Non-core problems [1,868 bytes]
- (hist) Which sectors are for and against [1,858 bytes]
- (hist) Blocking useful freedoms [1,840 bytes]
- (hist) Criminalising patent infringement is draconian [1,807 bytes]
- (hist) Denmark [1,803 bytes]
- (hist) François Pellegrini on software patents [1,801 bytes]
- (hist) Patenting software in ROM [1,800 bytes]
- (hist) Patent offices have financial incentives to approve applications [1,793 bytes]
- (hist) Public Patent Foundation [1,778 bytes]
- (hist) Apple v. Samsung 2011 lawsuits worldwide overview [1,775 bytes]
- (hist) Utility models and innovation patents [1,767 bytes]
- (hist) State of the art [1,766 bytes]
- (hist) Cost of defending yourself against patent litigation [1,755 bytes]
- (hist) Campaign for Creativity [1,746 bytes]
- (hist) IPv6 [1,741 bytes]
- (hist) Siemens ruling by German BGH on 22 April 2010 [1,741 bytes]
- (hist) Case law [1,718 bytes]
- (hist) Patently-O [1,712 bytes]
- (hist) Gemstar ruling by UK High Court on 27 November 2009 [1,711 bytes]
- (hist) Eric Von Hippel on software patents [1,709 bytes]
- (hist) Russia [1,707 bytes]
- (hist) Mark Webbink on software patents [1,707 bytes]
- (hist) Blank form [1,706 bytes]
- (hist) Newegg [1,705 bytes]
- (hist) David Martin on software patents [1,705 bytes]
- (hist) IFOSSLR patent articles [1,704 bytes]
- (hist) Webvention LLC [1,700 bytes]
- (hist) Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity [1,692 bytes]
- (hist) Harm without litigation or direct threats [1,689 bytes]
- (hist) Lodsys [1,681 bytes]
- (hist) Micro-blogging patents [1,668 bytes]
- (hist) Multimedia Home Platform [1,659 bytes]
- (hist) Corruption and bullying [1,657 bytes]
- (hist) Analyses of the patentability of specific ideas [1,657 bytes]
- (hist) Vulnerable free software with shielded binaries [1,652 bytes]
- (hist) Finding things on en.swpat.org [1,641 bytes]
- (hist) Hargreaves 2011 review of UK patent law [1,639 bytes]
- (hist) Buying harmful patents [1,636 bytes]
- (hist) Hewlett-Packard [1,626 bytes]
- (hist) Clogging up the legal system [1,625 bytes]
- (hist) Dell [1,624 bytes]
- (hist) Ben Klemens on software patents [1,624 bytes]
- (hist) ESP Australia [1,614 bytes]
- (hist) Bradley Kuhn on software patents [1,610 bytes]
- (hist) XML patents [1,607 bytes]
- (hist) Samsung v. Apple (2011, Germany) [1,596 bytes]
- (hist) Glossary [1,593 bytes]
- (hist) Cost of paying licence fees [1,582 bytes]
- (hist) Consultation Paper on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions [1,559 bytes]
- (hist) Patent ownership does not imply political support [1,557 bytes]
- (hist) How other domains are excluded from patentability [1,555 bytes]
- (hist) Protecting small inventors myth [1,548 bytes]
- (hist) Formulating arguments [1,544 bytes]
- (hist) Standing [1,540 bytes]
- (hist) Uniloc v. Red Hat and Rackspace (2013, USA) [1,535 bytes]
- (hist) SGI and Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. [1,525 bytes]
- (hist) Sandbox [1,499 bytes]
- (hist) Tandberg Telecom AS [1,491 bytes]
- (hist) NTP v. RIM (2000, USA) [1,488 bytes]
- (hist) Anthony Kennedy (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents [1,474 bytes]
- (hist) Divine e-commerce patents [1,474 bytes]
- (hist) Excluding software from patentability [1,469 bytes]
- (hist) Samsung v. Apple (2011, France) [1,453 bytes]
- (hist) Computer-implemented inventions [1,452 bytes]
- (hist) Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978 [1,450 bytes]
- (hist) 2009 patent litigation study [1,448 bytes]
- (hist) Cost barrier to market entry [1,437 bytes]
- (hist) 20 years is too long [1,425 bytes]
- (hist) European Commission [1,418 bytes]
- (hist) Samsung [1,415 bytes]
- (hist) Tim Berners Lee on software patents [1,414 bytes]
- (hist) Free Software Foundation Europe [1,413 bytes]
- (hist) GSM [1,408 bytes]
- (hist) When is patent abuse illegal [1,401 bytes]
- (hist) General introduction [1,391 bytes]
- (hist) Donald Knuth on software patents [1,388 bytes]
- (hist) Suggestions for interviewees [1,385 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk [1,375 bytes]
- (hist) TiVo [1,373 bytes]
- (hist) James Bessen on software patents [1,365 bytes]
- (hist) Matsushita v. Justsystem ruling by Tokyo District Court on 1 February 2005 [1,360 bytes]
- (hist) Z4 v. Microsoft and Autodesk (2006, USA) [1,354 bytes]
- (hist) Patent Litigation Risk Characterization [1,351 bytes]
- (hist) Novell-Microsoft patent deals [1,335 bytes]
- (hist) News 2005 [1,332 bytes]
- (hist) Open Source Risk Management [1,320 bytes]
- (hist) Slow process creates uncertainty [1,315 bytes]
- (hist) World Intellectual Property Organization [1,304 bytes]
- (hist) Damages copyright [1,299 bytes]
- (hist) Michel Barnier on software patents [1,280 bytes]
- (hist) GIF [1,274 bytes]
- (hist) Software patents produce legal uncertainty [1,271 bytes]
- (hist) Computer simulations and representations [1,269 bytes]
- (hist) 3d graphics patents [1,256 bytes]
- (hist) Network Competition Through Regulation report [1,253 bytes]
- (hist) OOXML [1,237 bytes]
- (hist) Patenting around what will become essential [1,236 bytes]
- (hist) The win-win patent myth [1,235 bytes]
- (hist) Continuing patent application [1,217 bytes]
- (hist) C2's VoIP patent [1,208 bytes]
- (hist) Yahoo [1,206 bytes]
- (hist) W3C [1,202 bytes]
- (hist) Motorola Mobility v. Apple ruling by Mannheim Regional Court on 9 December 2011 [1,199 bytes]
- (hist) Symantec [1,197 bytes]
- (hist) Competition law defence [1,197 bytes]
- (hist) IP Watchdog [1,187 bytes]
- (hist) Loser-Pays rule [1,180 bytes]
- (hist) Free Software Foundation [1,180 bytes]
- (hist) Costa Rica [1,172 bytes]