ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Pages with the most revisions

Showing below up to 500 results in range #1 to #500.

View (previous 500 | next 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

  1. Main Page‏‎ (706 revisions)
  2. New Zealand‏‎ (416 revisions)
  3. Blackboard inc.‏‎ (341 revisions)
  4. Who should see Patent Absurdity in 2010‏‎ (315 revisions)
  5. Books about software and patents‏‎ (299 revisions)
  6. Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)‏‎ (260 revisions)
  7. EPO EBA referral G3-08‏‎ (254 revisions - redirect page)
  8. Trend Micro v. Barracuda, Fortinet (2008, USA)‏‎ (247 revisions)
  9. Borland International‏‎ (247 revisions)
  10. Forum shopping‏‎ (215 revisions)
  11. Links to be processed‏‎ (190 revisions)
  12. Why abolish software patents‏‎ (183 revisions)
  13. I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)‏‎ (183 revisions)
  14. Bilski brainstorming‏‎ (179 revisions)
  15. Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA)‏‎ (178 revisions)
  16. Google‏‎ (176 revisions)
  17. Unified Patent Court‏‎ (172 revisions)
  18. 201001 acta.pdf as text‏‎ (171 revisions)
  19. Please help find these documents‏‎ (163 revisions)
  20. Australia‏‎ (160 revisions)
  21. The EuroLinux petition‏‎ (154 revisions)
  22. In re Bilski ruling by US CAFC on 30 October 2008‏‎ (136 revisions)
  23. Who should see Patent Absurdity in New Zealand‏‎ (135 revisions)
  24. Apple Inc.‏‎ (133 revisions)
  25. Microsoft‏‎ (133 revisions)
  26. Patent troll‏‎ (133 revisions)
  27. Choosing words to use in legal proposals‏‎ (132 revisions)
  28. Alice v. CLS Bank ruling by US Supreme Court on 19 June 2014‏‎ (124 revisions)
  29. Case law in the UK‏‎ (122 revisions)
  30. News 2010‏‎ (121 revisions)
  31. Studies on economics and innovation‏‎ (118 revisions)
  32. List of lawsuits‏‎ (112 revisions)
  33. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview‏‎ (106 revisions)
  34. Case law in the USA‏‎ (104 revisions)
  35. EPO EBoA referral G3-08‏‎ (102 revisions)
  36. MPEG LA‏‎ (101 revisions)
  37. Business Software Alliance‏‎ (100 revisions)
  38. Patent Absurdity/English‏‎ (96 revisions)
  39. Sandbox‏‎ (95 revisions)
  40. Harm to standards and compatibility‏‎ (93 revisions)
  41. WebM, VP8 and VP9‏‎ (93 revisions)
  42. Bilski ruling by US Supreme Court on 28 June 2010‏‎ (91 revisions)
  43. ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text‏‎ (88 revisions)
  44. European Patent Office‏‎ (87 revisions)
  45. Patent Absurdity/Русский (Russian)‏‎ (86 revisions)
  46. Free software‏‎ (83 revisions)
  47. Example software patents‏‎ (82 revisions)
  48. Audio-video patents‏‎ (81 revisions)
  49. HTML5 and video patents‏‎ (79 revisions)
  50. Open Invention Network‏‎ (77 revisions)
  51. Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs‏‎ (75 revisions)
  52. Current events‏‎ (74 revisions)
  53. Software does not make a computer a new machine‏‎ (72 revisions)
  54. Free software projects harmed by software patents‏‎ (71 revisions)
  55. .NET, C-sharp, and Mono‏‎ (70 revisions)
  56. India‏‎ (70 revisions)
  57. Australian consultation responses 2009‏‎ (68 revisions)
  58. Related Wikipedia articles‏‎ (67 revisions)
  59. Patent clauses in software licenses‏‎ (66 revisions)
  60. United States Patent and Trademark Office‏‎ (66 revisions)
  61. Case law‏‎ (65 revisions)
  62. South Africa‏‎ (65 revisions)
  63. Software patents‏‎ (64 revisions)
  64. Insurance against patent litigation‏‎ (63 revisions)
  65. Case law in Germany‏‎ (62 revisions)
  66. Symbian ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 8 October 2008‏‎ (61 revisions)
  67. Finding things on en.swpat.org‏‎ (61 revisions)
  68. Particular machine or transformation‏‎ (60 revisions)
  69. CSIRO wifi patent‏‎ (60 revisions)
  70. United States of America‏‎ (58 revisions)
  71. All businesses have software patent risk‏‎ (58 revisions)
  72. Software patent quality worse than all other fields‏‎ (58 revisions)
  73. Publishing information is made dangerous‏‎ (57 revisions)
  74. List of recordings and transcripts‏‎ (57 revisions)
  75. Red Hat‏‎ (56 revisions)
  76. Statements from venture capitalists‏‎ (56 revisions)
  77. Patent Absurdity‏‎ (56 revisions)
  78. Blocking innovation and research‏‎ (55 revisions)
  79. Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)‏‎ (55 revisions)
  80. Patent Absurdity/Español (Spanish)‏‎ (55 revisions)
  81. Patent Absurdity/Français (French)‏‎ (55 revisions)
  82. Germany‏‎ (54 revisions)
  83. TRIPS Agreement‏‎ (54 revisions)
  84. Motorola v. Apple (2010, USA)‏‎ (54 revisions)
  85. Legislation in the USA‏‎ (54 revisions)
  86. USPTO 2010 consultation‏‎ (53 revisions)
  87. Patent review by the public‏‎ (53 revisions)
  88. Supreme Court of the United States‏‎ (53 revisions)
  89. Why software is different‏‎ (53 revisions)
  90. European Patent Convention‏‎ (52 revisions)
  91. Disclosure is unreadable‏‎ (52 revisions)
  92. Timeline‏‎ (52 revisions)
  93. Freedom of expression‏‎ (51 revisions)
  94. Bilski overview‏‎ (51 revisions)
  95. Microsoft FAT patents‏‎ (50 revisions)
  96. Phone patent litigation‏‎ (50 revisions)
  97. Belgium‏‎ (50 revisions)
  98. Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007‏‎ (50 revisions)
  99. Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure‏‎ (49 revisions)
  100. Infringement is unavoidable and clearance is impossible‏‎ (49 revisions)
  101. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit‏‎ (48 revisions)
  102. Alice v. CLS Bank (2012, USA)‏‎ (48 revisions)
  103. Gowers Review of Intellectual Property‏‎ (48 revisions)
  104. Software patents harm SMEs‏‎ (47 revisions)
  105. EU software patents directive‏‎ (47 revisions)
  106. Oracle v. SAP (2010, USA)‏‎ (46 revisions)
  107. Microsoft royalty demands for Android and other non-Microsoft software‏‎ (46 revisions)
  108. France‏‎ (45 revisions)
  109. Microsoft Community Promise, and the OSP‏‎ (45 revisions)
  110. Software Tree LLC (Acacia) v. Red Hat (2009, USA)‏‎ (45 revisions)
  111. United Kingdom‏‎ (45 revisions)
  112. Raising examination standards‏‎ (45 revisions)
  113. Software is math‏‎ (45 revisions)
  114. Harm caused by all types of patents‏‎ (45 revisions)
  115. German patent courts and appeals‏‎ (44 revisions)
  116. Israel‏‎ (44 revisions)
  117. Canada‏‎ (44 revisions)
  118. United Patent Litigation System‏‎ (44 revisions)
  119. End Software Patents‏‎ (44 revisions)
  120. Invalidating harmful patents‏‎ (44 revisions)
  121. Countries and regions‏‎ (44 revisions)
  122. Drafting the next US amicus brief‏‎ (43 revisions)
  123. Ireland‏‎ (42 revisions)
  124. Blanket patent licences and promises‏‎ (42 revisions)
  125. Examples of use for sabotage‏‎ (42 revisions)
  126. Electronic Frontier Foundation‏‎ (42 revisions)
  127. Japan‏‎ (42 revisions)
  128. U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. many (2009, USA)‏‎ (42 revisions)
  129. Patentability in the USA after Bilski‏‎ (41 revisions)
  130. Our goals‏‎ (41 revisions)
  131. John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents‏‎ (41 revisions)
  132. KSR v. Teleflex ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007‏‎ (40 revisions)
  133. Shielding software from litigation‏‎ (40 revisions)
  134. Antitrust law‏‎ (39 revisions)
  135. Microsoft v. TomTom (2008, USA)‏‎ (39 revisions)
  136. Ogg Theora‏‎ (39 revisions)
  137. Analogies‏‎ (38 revisions)
  138. Business method patents‏‎ (38 revisions)
  139. Brazil‏‎ (38 revisions)
  140. Interoperability exception‏‎ (38 revisions)
  141. Patent Absurdity/Subtitles‏‎ (38 revisions)
  142. Amazon ruling by Canadian Federal Court on 14 October 2010‏‎ (38 revisions)
  143. Defensive publication and prior art databases‏‎ (37 revisions)
  144. Software patents exist in Europe, kinda‏‎ (37 revisions)
  145. Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2008, USA)‏‎ (37 revisions)
  146. America Invents Act‏‎ (37 revisions)
  147. Costly legal costs‏‎ (37 revisions)
  148. IBM v. TurboHercules in 2010‏‎ (36 revisions)
  149. How to read patents‏‎ (36 revisions)
  150. Patent Absurdity/Italiano (Italian)‏‎ (35 revisions)
  151. Patent Absurdity/简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)‏‎ (35 revisions)
  152. Defensive patent acquisition‏‎ (35 revisions)
  153. In re Alappat ruling by US CAFC on 29 July 1994‏‎ (35 revisions)
  154. Sun Microsystems inc.‏‎ (35 revisions)
  155. Amazon's one-click shopping patent‏‎ (35 revisions)
  156. CPTN Holdings LLC‏‎ (35 revisions)
  157. Richard Stallman on software patents‏‎ (35 revisions)
  158. Defensive patent pools‏‎ (34 revisions)
  159. Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981‏‎ (34 revisions)
  160. OpenGL‏‎ (34 revisions)
  161. Making leaflets‏‎ (34 revisions)
  162. Micro-blogging patents‏‎ (34 revisions)
  163. Blocking competing software‏‎ (33 revisions)
  164. Harmonization of European patent systems‏‎ (33 revisions)
  165. UK patent courts and appeals‏‎ (33 revisions)
  166. United States International Trade Commission‏‎ (33 revisions)
  167. IBM‏‎ (32 revisions)
  168. W3C‏‎ (32 revisions)
  169. United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office‏‎ (32 revisions)
  170. European Patent Office grants software patents‏‎ (32 revisions)
  171. Java and patents‏‎ (32 revisions)
  172. Canonical Group‏‎ (32 revisions)
  173. Uniloc v. Microsoft (2009, USA)‏‎ (31 revisions)
  174. Oracle‏‎ (31 revisions)
  175. Corruption and bullying‏‎ (31 revisions)
  176. Patent lawyers‏‎ (31 revisions)
  177. Why focus only on software‏‎ (31 revisions)
  178. State Street ruling by US CAFC on 23 July 1998‏‎ (31 revisions)
  179. Argentina‏‎ (30 revisions)
  180. ACTA and software patents‏‎ (30 revisions)
  181. NZICT‏‎ (30 revisions)
  182. Patent non-aggression pacts‏‎ (30 revisions)
  183. Timothy B. Lee on software patents‏‎ (29 revisions)
  184. Use software and functionality from 20 years ago‏‎ (29 revisions)
  185. Campaign for Creativity‏‎ (29 revisions)
  186. Storyline and fashion patents‏‎ (29 revisions)
  187. European Union‏‎ (29 revisions)
  188. Comparing Java to .Net and C-sharp‏‎ (28 revisions)
  189. The value of promises and estoppel defences‏‎ (28 revisions)
  190. Harm without litigation or direct threats‏‎ (28 revisions)
  191. European Patent Litigation Agreement‏‎ (28 revisions)
  192. Criteria for patentability‏‎ (28 revisions)
  193. Category tree‏‎ (28 revisions)
  194. Cost of getting patents and maintaining them‏‎ (28 revisions)
  195. Intellectual Ventures‏‎ (28 revisions)
  196. Z4 v. Microsoft and Autodesk (2006, USA)‏‎ (28 revisions)
  197. Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006‏‎ (27 revisions)
  198. USA patent courts and appeals‏‎ (27 revisions)
  199. IBM and MS deciding New Zealand legislation‏‎ (27 revisions)
  200. Patent Absurdity/Português do Brasil (Brazilian Portuguese)‏‎ (27 revisions)
  201. Cost barrier to market entry‏‎ (27 revisions)
  202. 2009 patent litigation study‏‎ (27 revisions)
  203. Venezuela‏‎ (27 revisions)
  204. Patents Act 2013‏‎ (27 revisions)
  205. Calculating damages and legal fees in the USA‏‎ (26 revisions)
  206. Fake representatives of free software‏‎ (26 revisions)
  207. NetApp filesystem patents‏‎ (26 revisions - redirect page)
  208. Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"‏‎ (26 revisions)
  209. Open letter on Australian software patents‏‎ (26 revisions)
  210. Design patent‏‎ (26 revisions)
  211. More than innovation‏‎ (25 revisions)
  212. US government‏‎ (25 revisions)
  213. Some SMEs like software patents myth‏‎ (25 revisions)
  214. Bilski's patent application text‏‎ (25 revisions)
  215. Finland‏‎ (25 revisions)
  216. Webpages that disappeared‏‎ (25 revisions)
  217. InNova v. 36 companies (2010, USA)‏‎ (24 revisions)
  218. Siemens ruling by German BGH on 22 April 2010‏‎ (24 revisions)
  219. Novell‏‎ (24 revisions)
  220. Mexico‏‎ (24 revisions)
  221. 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey‏‎ (24 revisions)
  222. Searching for patents‏‎ (24 revisions)
  223. Gottschalk v. Benson ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 November 1972‏‎ (24 revisions)
  224. Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08‏‎ (24 revisions)
  225. Consultations from government bodies and courts‏‎ (24 revisions)
  226. FSF‏‎ (24 revisions - redirect page)
  227. Rethinking the European ICT agenda‏‎ (23 revisions)
  228. Acacia Research Corporation‏‎ (23 revisions)
  229. Patent ambush‏‎ (23 revisions)
  230. Sweden‏‎ (23 revisions)
  231. Anti-lock braking example‏‎ (23 revisions)
  232. Software progress happens without patents‏‎ (22 revisions)
  233. Uruguay‏‎ (22 revisions)
  234. Implicit patent licence‏‎ (22 revisions)
  235. A bubble waiting to burst‏‎ (22 revisions)
  236. Do software patents exist in my area‏‎ (22 revisions)
  237. Patentable subject matter‏‎ (22 revisions)
  238. Which sectors are for and against‏‎ (22 revisions)
  239. Sources of software patent news‏‎ (22 revisions)
  240. Changing company patent policies‏‎ (22 revisions)
  241. Tim Bray on software patents‏‎ (22 revisions)
  242. Fotomedia Technologies v. many (2009, USA)‏‎ (22 revisions)
  243. 20 years is too long‏‎ (22 revisions)
  244. Duds and non-solutions‏‎ (22 revisions)
  245. Costa Rica‏‎ (22 revisions)
  246. FRAND‏‎ (22 revisions)
  247. First-to-file or first-to-invent‏‎ (22 revisions)
  248. Rockstar Consortium and the Nortel patents‏‎ (21 revisions)
  249. German parliament petition against software patents‏‎ (21 revisions)
  250. Groklaw‏‎ (21 revisions)
  251. Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal‏‎ (21 revisions)
  252. SAP‏‎ (21 revisions)
  253. Quanta v. LGE ruling by US Supreme Court on 9 June 2008‏‎ (21 revisions)
  254. Nokia‏‎ (21 revisions)
  255. Mp3‏‎ (21 revisions)
  256. Webpage and e-commerce patents‏‎ (21 revisions)
  257. Software Freedom Law Center‏‎ (20 revisions)
  258. XML patents‏‎ (20 revisions)
  259. Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act‏‎ (20 revisions)
  260. Free Software Foundation‏‎ (20 revisions)
  261. Donald Knuth on software patents‏‎ (20 revisions)
  262. Spain‏‎ (20 revisions)
  263. Poland‏‎ (20 revisions)
  264. Minor reform proposals in the USA‏‎ (20 revisions)
  265. Chile‏‎ (20 revisions)
  266. Netherlands‏‎ (20 revisions)
  267. Boston swpat conference 2006 videos‏‎ (20 revisions)
  268. Network Competition Through Regulation report‏‎ (20 revisions)
  269. League for Programming Freedom‏‎ (20 revisions)
  270. EBay v. MercExchange ruling by US Supreme Court on 15 May 2006‏‎ (20 revisions)
  271. China, People's Republic of‏‎ (20 revisions)
  272. An Empirical Look at Software Patents‏‎ (19 revisions)
  273. Apple v. Samsung preliminary injunction by Dutch court on 24 August 2011‏‎ (19 revisions)
  274. Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas‏‎ (19 revisions)
  275. 2008 State of Software Patents‏‎ (19 revisions)
  276. Invalid patents remain unchallenged‏‎ (19 revisions)
  277. Cost of the patent system to governments‏‎ (19 revisions)
  278. US FTC 2003 report on innovation‏‎ (19 revisions)
  279. Switzerland‏‎ (19 revisions)
  280. Eben Moglen on software patents‏‎ (18 revisions)
  281. Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)‏‎ (18 revisions)
  282. More than patent trolls‏‎ (18 revisions)
  283. VoloMedia's podcasting patent‏‎ (18 revisions)
  284. Florian Mueller on software patents‏‎ (18 revisions)
  285. Mayo ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 March 2012‏‎ (18 revisions)
  286. Microsoft FAT ruling by German BGH on 20 April 2010‏‎ (18 revisions)
  287. Dan Ravicher on software patents‏‎ (18 revisions)
  288. News 2009‏‎ (18 revisions)
  289. Patenting software in ROM‏‎ (18 revisions)
  290. Philippines‏‎ (18 revisions)
  291. Glossary‏‎ (18 revisions)
  292. Philips‏‎ (18 revisions)
  293. Interval Licensing v. 11 big companies (2010, USA)‏‎ (18 revisions)
  294. State of the art‏‎ (18 revisions)
  295. Patent standards here are higher than in the USA‏‎ (18 revisions)
  296. Wilful infringement‏‎ (18 revisions)
  297. ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999‏‎ (18 revisions)
  298. MPL and patents‏‎ (17 revisions)
  299. News 2006‏‎ (17 revisions)
  300. CLS Bank v. Alice ruling by US CAFC on 8 May 2013‏‎ (17 revisions)
  301. Patent Absurdity/Română (Romanian)‏‎ (17 revisions)
  302. Harms to education‏‎ (17 revisions)
  303. Patent Absurdity/Svenska (Swedish)‏‎ (17 revisions)
  304. Protecting small inventors myth‏‎ (17 revisions)
  305. Costs‏‎ (16 revisions)
  306. Divine e-commerce patents‏‎ (16 revisions)
  307. Software and Patents in Europe‏‎ (16 revisions)
  308. NetApp's filesystem patents‏‎ (16 revisions)
  309. Halliburton ruling by UK High Court on 5 October 2011‏‎ (16 revisions)
  310. Ben Klemens on software patents‏‎ (16 revisions)
  311. Alice v. CLS Bank amicus briefs‏‎ (16 revisions)
  312. Patent Absurdity/עברית (Hebrew)‏‎ (16 revisions)
  313. Statements from UEAPME‏‎ (16 revisions)
  314. Defensive Patent License‏‎ (15 revisions)
  315. Software relies on incremental development‏‎ (15 revisions)
  316. People‏‎ (15 revisions - redirect page)
  317. Matsushita v. Justsystem ruling by Tokyo District Court on 1 February 2005‏‎ (15 revisions)
  318. International agreements‏‎ (15 revisions)
  319. Blocking useful freedoms‏‎ (15 revisions)
  320. Ciarán O'Riordan on software patents‏‎ (15 revisions)
  321. Apple Dock‏‎ (15 revisions)
  322. List of patents that appear invalid with reasoning‏‎ (15 revisions)
  323. Who lobbied for software patents‏‎ (15 revisions)
  324. Who owns software patents‏‎ (15 revisions)
  325. Patent Absurdity/Deutsch (German)‏‎ (15 revisions)
  326. GIF‏‎ (15 revisions)
  327. Ideas for info to gather‏‎ (15 revisions)
  328. Acacia v. Red Hat and Novell (2010, USA)‏‎ (15 revisions)
  329. GNU General Public License Version 2‏‎ (15 revisions)
  330. Cabinet for the blind example‏‎ (15 revisions)
  331. Bruce Perens on software patents‏‎ (15 revisions)
  332. Europe‏‎ (14 revisions)
  333. Analyses of the patentability of specific ideas‏‎ (14 revisions)
  334. Multimedia Home Platform‏‎ (14 revisions)
  335. US government 2011 innovation survey‏‎ (14 revisions)
  336. Banning software patents‏‎ (14 revisions)
  337. World Intellectual Property Organization‏‎ (14 revisions)
  338. Novell-Microsoft patent deals‏‎ (14 revisions)
  339. Organising a campaign‏‎ (14 revisions)
  340. How to avoid a specific software patent‏‎ (14 revisions)
  341. Fujitsu et. al. v. Netgear (2007, USA)‏‎ (14 revisions)
  342. Open Source Risk Management‏‎ (14 revisions)
  343. Cuba‏‎ (14 revisions)
  344. Inequality between small and large patent holders‏‎ (14 revisions)
  345. Yahoo‏‎ (14 revisions)
  346. Terminology recommendations‏‎ (14 revisions)
  347. Non-aggression promise to employees‏‎ (14 revisions)
  348. Staff Union of the EPO‏‎ (13 revisions)
  349. Brad Feld on software patents‏‎ (13 revisions)
  350. Pen and paper patents‏‎ (13 revisions)
  351. Gemstar ruling by UK High Court on 27 November 2009‏‎ (13 revisions)
  352. Elan Microelectronics v. Apple (2010, USA)‏‎ (13 revisions)
  353. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk‏‎ (13 revisions)
  354. SAS ruling by EU Court of Justice on 2 May 2012‏‎ (13 revisions)
  355. LG v. Sony (2010, US and EU)‏‎ (13 revisions)
  356. Silly patents‏‎ (13 revisions)
  357. Formulating arguments‏‎ (13 revisions)
  358. RSA patent‏‎ (13 revisions)
  359. Free Software Foundation Europe‏‎ (13 revisions)
  360. EPO case law‏‎ (13 revisions)
  361. How to submit an amicus brief in the USA‏‎ (13 revisions)
  362. Patent Trial and Appeal Board‏‎ (13 revisions)
  363. Canadian patent courts and appeals‏‎ (13 revisions)
  364. Nokia v. HTC (2012, Germany)‏‎ (13 revisions)
  365. Mp3 audio example‏‎ (13 revisions)
  366. Image processing patents‏‎ (13 revisions)
  367. Venturous Australia‏‎ (13 revisions)
  368. Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity‏‎ (12 revisions)
  369. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement‏‎ (12 revisions)
  370. Eolas v. Microsoft (2004, USA)‏‎ (12 revisions)
  371. Patent ownership does not imply political support‏‎ (12 revisions)
  372. Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978‏‎ (12 revisions)
  373. Dan Bricklin on software patents‏‎ (12 revisions)
  374. Linus Torvalds on software patents‏‎ (12 revisions)
  375. EU 2005 proposed amendments‏‎ (12 revisions)
  376. Competition law defence‏‎ (12 revisions)
  377. Andy Grove on software patents‏‎ (12 revisions)
  378. JPEG 2000‏‎ (12 revisions)
  379. Harmonization of international patent systems‏‎ (12 revisions)
  380. Motorola Mobility v. Apple ruling by Mannheim Regional Court on 9 December 2011‏‎ (12 revisions)
  381. David A. Wheeler on software patents‏‎ (12 revisions)
  382. Digital camera image processing example‏‎ (12 revisions)
  383. Richard Posner on software patents‏‎ (12 revisions)
  384. Malaysia‏‎ (12 revisions)
  385. Specialised patent court‏‎ (12 revisions)
  386. Denmark‏‎ (12 revisions)
  387. London Protocol‏‎ (12 revisions)
  388. Video formats from 20 years ago‏‎ (11 revisions - redirect page)
  389. Software Patents: A Time for Change‏‎ (11 revisions)
  390. Machine translation of patents‏‎ (11 revisions)
  391. Patent Absurdity/Persian‏‎ (11 revisions)
  392. Patent governance‏‎ (11 revisions)
  393. Patent Absurdity/Polski (Polish)‏‎ (11 revisions)
  394. Motorola‏‎ (11 revisions)
  395. 1994 USPTO software patent hearings‏‎ (11 revisions)
  396. Technical solutions not technical problems‏‎ (11 revisions)
  397. Acacia Research Corp. v. Apple (2007, USA)‏‎ (11 revisions)
  398. Tim Berners Lee on software patents‏‎ (11 revisions)
  399. Xerox and Fuji Xerox‏‎ (11 revisions)
  400. Software patents produce legal uncertainty‏‎ (11 revisions)
  401. MPEG video formats‏‎ (11 revisions - redirect page)
  402. Patent Absurdity/日本語 (Japanese)‏‎ (11 revisions)
  403. Apple v. Samsung 2011 lawsuits worldwide overview‏‎ (10 revisions)
  404. In re Lowry ruling by US CAFC on 26 August 1994‏‎ (10 revisions)
  405. Public Patent Foundation‏‎ (10 revisions)
  406. Workspace: A house that computes (analogy)‏‎ (10 revisions)
  407. Low risk‏‎ (10 revisions)
  408. Economic Parasites‏‎ (10 revisions)
  409. In re Spansion by US Third Circuit on 21 December 2012‏‎ (10 revisions)
  410. Suggestions for the USPTO in 2013‏‎ (10 revisions)
  411. TLS-authz‏‎ (10 revisions)
  412. Siemens AG‏‎ (10 revisions)
  413. Patent Cooperation Treaty‏‎ (10 revisions)
  414. Allied Security Trust‏‎ (10 revisions)
  415. Against Intellectual Monopoly‏‎ (10 revisions)
  416. UK anti-swpat letter brainstorming 2010‏‎ (10 revisions)
  417. Brazilian patent office consultation 2012‏‎ (10 revisions)
  418. OOXML‏‎ (10 revisions)
  419. HTC‏‎ (10 revisions)
  420. David A. Kennedy on software patents‏‎ (10 revisions)
  421. DigitalEurope (EICTA)‏‎ (10 revisions)
  422. South Korea‏‎ (10 revisions)
  423. Patent Absurdity/Suomi (Finnish)‏‎ (10 revisions)
  424. Xerox Corp v. Google Inc et al (2010, USA)‏‎ (10 revisions)
  425. AIPPI‏‎ (10 revisions)
  426. General introduction‏‎ (10 revisions)
  427. Security, encryption and spam solution patents‏‎ (10 revisions)
  428. Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)‏‎ (10 revisions)
  429. Consulta brasileira do escritório de patentes 2012‏‎ (10 revisions)
  430. Settled expectations‏‎ (10 revisions)
  431. Lodsys‏‎ (10 revisions)
  432. John Carmack on software patents‏‎ (10 revisions)
  433. Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011‏‎ (10 revisions)
  434. Free software exception‏‎ (10 revisions)
  435. Opera Software‏‎ (9 revisions)
  436. Burst v. Microsoft (2004, USA)‏‎ (9 revisions)
  437. I4i v. Microsoft ruling by the US Supreme Court on 9 June 2011‏‎ (9 revisions)
  438. Microsoft v. Salesforce (2010, USA)‏‎ (9 revisions)
  439. Controllable forces of nature‏‎ (9 revisions)
  440. Incompatible costs‏‎ (9 revisions - redirect page)
  441. Standing‏‎ (9 revisions)
  442. Amazon‏‎ (9 revisions)
  443. Stephen Breyer (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents‏‎ (9 revisions)
  444. Costs of defending are astronomical for developers and SMEs‏‎ (9 revisions - redirect page)
  445. Threats in Latin America‏‎ (9 revisions - redirect page)
  446. Buying harmful patents‏‎ (9 revisions)
  447. Independent invention defence‏‎ (9 revisions)
  448. Patently-O‏‎ (9 revisions)
  449. Excluding software from patentability‏‎ (9 revisions)
  450. Michael Meurer on software patents‏‎ (9 revisions)
  451. Patent office case law‏‎ (9 revisions)
  452. Hewlett-Packard‏‎ (9 revisions)
  453. Statements from CEA-PME‏‎ (9 revisions)
  454. The failing solutions are expensive‏‎ (9 revisions)
  455. Samsung‏‎ (9 revisions)
  456. Stac v. Microsoft (1993, USA)‏‎ (9 revisions)
  457. Community patent review‏‎ (9 revisions - redirect page)
  458. The notice problem‏‎ (8 revisions)
  459. US7035281‏‎ (8 revisions)
  460. Mark Webbink on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  461. Jpeg‏‎ (8 revisions)
  462. Samsung v. Apple (2011, France)‏‎ (8 revisions)
  463. Patent Absurdity/Lietuvių (Lithuanian)‏‎ (8 revisions)
  464. How other domains are excluded from patentability‏‎ (8 revisions)
  465. Bradley Kuhn on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  466. Eolas v. many defendants (2009, USA)‏‎ (8 revisions)
  467. When Patents Attack‏‎ (8 revisions)
  468. Bill Gates on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  469. Software patents are abstract and ambiguous‏‎ (8 revisions)
  470. Insurance‏‎ (8 revisions - redirect page)
  471. Criminalising patent infringement is draconian‏‎ (8 revisions)
  472. As such‏‎ (8 revisions)
  473. Giving good presentations about software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  474. NTP v. RIM (2000, USA)‏‎ (8 revisions)
  475. Cost of defending yourself against patent litigation‏‎ (8 revisions)
  476. James Bessen on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  477. No Lobbyists As Such‏‎ (8 revisions)
  478. The Patented Webshop‏‎ (8 revisions)
  479. Changes in company policy over time‏‎ (8 revisions)
  480. Brian Kahin on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  481. Software innovation happens without patents‏‎ (8 revisions - redirect page)
  482. Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft (2008, USA)‏‎ (8 revisions)
  483. Intellectual Property Asset Corporation‏‎ (8 revisions)
  484. IPv6‏‎ (8 revisions)
  485. Jobs and skills‏‎ (8 revisions)
  486. Hungary‏‎ (8 revisions)
  487. Fotomedia Technologies vs the World 2009‏‎ (8 revisions - redirect page)
  488. Cablegate info on software patents‏‎ (8 revisions)
  489. Statements from developers‏‎ (7 revisions)
  490. President's Commission on the Patent System‏‎ (7 revisions)
  491. US7490593‏‎ (7 revisions)
  492. Greek‏‎ (7 revisions - redirect page)
  493. Suggestions for interviewees‏‎ (7 revisions)
  494. Samsung v. Apple (2011, Germany)‏‎ (7 revisions)
  495. News 2005‏‎ (7 revisions)
  496. Math You Can't Use‏‎ (7 revisions)
  497. Case law in Australia‏‎ (7 revisions)
  498. Why consumer organisations should be involved‏‎ (7 revisions)
  499. European Commission answer to P-010463-12‏‎ (7 revisions)
  500. Examples of good amicus briefs‏‎ (7 revisions)

View (previous 500 | next 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)