ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Pages without language links

The following pages do not link to other language versions.

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

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

  1. .NET, C-sharp, and Mono
  2. 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
  3. 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey
  4. 2008 State of Software Patents
  5. 2009 patent litigation study
  6. 201001 acta.pdf as text
  7. 20 years is too long
  8. 3d graphics patents
  9. 3d printing
  10. ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text
  11. ACTA and software patents
  12. AIPLA
  13. AIPPI
  14. ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999
  15. A bubble waiting to burst
  16. Acacia Research Corp. v. Apple (2007, USA)
  17. Acacia Research Corporation
  18. Acacia v. Red Hat and Novell (2010, USA)
  19. Adam Gierek on software patents
  20. Adobe
  21. Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006
  22. Africa
  23. Against Intellectual Monopoly
  24. Alcatel-Lucent
  25. Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft (2008, USA)
  26. Alice v. CLS Bank (2012, USA)
  27. Alice v. CLS Bank amicus briefs
  28. Alice v. CLS Bank ruling by US Supreme Court on 19 June 2014
  29. All businesses have software patent risk
  30. Allied Security Trust
  31. Amazon
  32. Amazon's gift ordering patent
  33. Amazon's one-click shopping patent
  34. Amazon ruling by Canadian Federal Court on 14 October 2010
  35. America Invents Act
  36. An Empirical Look at Software Patents
  37. Analogies
  38. Analyses of the patentability of specific ideas
  39. Andean Community
  40. Andy Grove on software patents
  41. Another Parable of the Cave: progress in knowledge untethered to scarcities is promoted through increased access
  42. Anthony Kennedy (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents
  43. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
  44. Anti-lock braking example
  45. Antitrust law
  46. Apple's slide-to-unlock patent
  47. Apple Dock
  48. Apple Inc.
  49. Apple ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 3 May 2013
  50. Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)
  51. Apple v. Samsung 2011 lawsuits worldwide overview
  52. Apple v. Samsung preliminary injunction by Dutch court on 24 August 2011
  53. Applicants paying for patent review
  54. April
  55. Argentina
  56. As such
  57. Association for Competitive Technology
  58. Asymmetric numeral systems
  59. Audio-video patents
  60. Australia
  61. Australian consultation responses 2009
  62. Bangui Agreement
  63. Banning software patents
  64. Bedrock v. Google (2011, USA)
  65. Belgium
  66. Ben Klemens on software patents
  67. Ben Sturmfels on software patents
  68. Bill Gates on software patents
  69. Bilski's patent application text
  70. Bilski brainstorming
  71. Bilski overview
  72. Bilski ruling by US Supreme Court on 28 June 2010
  73. Bilski v. Kappos (2010, USA)
  74. Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs
  75. Black Duck's licence compatibility patent
  76. Blackboard inc.
  77. Blank form
  78. Blanket patent licences and promises
  79. Blocking competing software
  80. Blocking innovation and research
  81. Blocking useful freedoms
  82. Boards of Appeal
  83. Books about software and patents
  84. Borland International
  85. Boston swpat conference 2006 videos
  86. Brad Feld on software patents
  87. Bradley Kuhn on software patents
  88. Brasil
  89. Brazil
  90. Brazilian patent office consultation 2012
  91. Breaks common software distribution models
  92. Brian Kahin on software patents
  93. Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08
  94. Bruce Perens on software patents
  95. Burst v. Microsoft (2004, USA)
  96. Business Software Alliance
  97. Business method patents
  98. Buying harmful patents
  99. C2's VoIP patent
  100. CDDL and patents
  101. CLS Bank v. Alice ruling by US CAFC on 8 May 2013
  102. CPTN Holdings LLC
  103. CRISPR-Cas9
  104. CSIRO wifi patent
  105. Cabinet for the blind example
  106. Cablegate info on software patents
  107. Calculating damages and legal fees in the USA
  108. Campaign for Creativity
  109. Campaigns to avoid certain patented ideas
  110. Canada
  111. Canadian patent courts and appeals
  112. Canonical Group
  113. Cartoons
  114. Case law
  115. Case law in Australia
  116. Case law in Canada
  117. Case law in Germany
  118. Case law in the UK
  119. Case law in the USA
  120. Category tree
  121. Changes in company policy over time
  122. Changing company patent policies
  123. Chile
  124. China, People's Republic of
  125. Choosing words to use in legal proposals
  126. Ciarán O'Riordan on software patents
  127. Clogging up the legal system
  128. Comparing Java to .Net and C-sharp
  129. Competition law defence
  130. Computer-implemented inventions
  131. Computer simulations and representations
  132. Consulta brasileira do escritório de patentes 2012
  133. Consultation Paper on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions
  134. Consultations from government bodies and courts
  135. Continuing patent application
  136. Controllable forces of nature
  137. Controlling entire markets
  138. Corruption and bullying
  139. Cost barrier to market entry
  140. Cost of defending yourself against patent litigation
  141. Cost of getting patents and maintaining them
  142. Cost of patent searches to avoid infringement
  143. Cost of paying licence fees
  144. Cost of the patent system to governments
  145. Costa Rica
  146. Costly legal costs
  147. Costs
  148. Costs of the Patent System Revisited
  149. Costs passed on to buyers of software
  150. Countries and regions
  151. Criminalising patent infringement is draconian
  152. Criteria for patentability
  153. Cross-licensing
  154. Cuba
  155. Current events
  156. Cybersource v. Retail ruling by US CAFC on 16 Aug 2011
  157. DE10232674
  158. Damages copyright
  159. Dan Bricklin on software patents
  160. Dan Ravicher on software patents
  161. David A. Kennedy on software patents
  162. David A. Wheeler on software patents
  163. David Martin on software patents
  164. Defensive Patent License
  165. Defensive patent acquisition
  166. Defensive patent pools
  167. Defensive publication and prior art databases
  168. Dell
  169. Democratizing Innovation
  170. Denmark
  171. Design patent
  172. Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981
  173. DigitalEurope (EICTA)
  174. Digital camera image processing example
  175. Digitude Innovations
  176. Disclosure is unreadable
  177. Divine e-commerce patents
  178. Do software patents exist in my area
  179. Doctrine of Equivalents
  180. Don't File a Patent
  181. Donald Knuth on software patents
  182. Drafting the next US amicus brief
  183. Duds and non-solutions
  184. EBay v. MercExchange ruling by US Supreme Court on 15 May 2006
  185. EPO EBoA referral G3-08
  186. EPO G3-08 brainstorming
  187. EPO case law
  188. ESP's brief for EPO referral G3-08
  189. ESP:website redesign 2015
  190. ESP Australia
  191. ESP report February 2011
  192. EU 2005 proposed amendments
  193. EU software patents directive
  194. Eben Moglen on software patents
  195. Economic Parasites
  196. Elan Microelectronics v. Apple (2010, USA)
  197. Electronic Frontier Foundation
  198. Elena Kagan (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents
  199. End Software Patents
  200. Eolas
  201. Eolas v. Microsoft (2004, USA)
  202. Eolas v. many defendants (2009, USA)
  203. Eric Von Hippel on software patents
  204. Ericsson
  205. Erik Josefsson on software patents
  206. Eurasian Patent Convention
  207. Europe
  208. European Commission
  209. European Commission answer to P-010463-12
  210. European Parliament
  211. European Patent Convention
  212. European Patent Litigation Agreement
  213. European Patent Office
  214. European Patent Office grants software patents
  215. European Union
  216. Exalead ruling by French TGI Paris on 19 March 2010
  217. Example software patents
  218. Examples of good amicus briefs
  219. Examples of use for sabotage
  220. Excluding software from patentability
  221. FRAND
  222. Fake representatives of free software
  223. False accusations of patent infringement
  224. Field-of-use limitations in patent applications
  225. Financial transaction patents
  226. Finding things on en.swpat.org
  227. Finland
  228. First-to-file or first-to-invent
  229. FlightPrep v. RunwayFinder and others (2010, USA)
  230. Florian Mueller on software patents
  231. Formulating arguments
  232. Forum shopping
  233. Fotomedia Technologies v. many (2009, USA)
  234. Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
  235. France
  236. François Pellegrini on software patents
  237. Free Software Foundation
  238. Free Software Foundation Europe
  239. Free Trade Agreements with the USA
  240. Free software
  241. Free software exception
  242. Free software projects harmed by software patents
  243. Freedom of expression
  244. Fujitsu et. al. v. Netgear (2007, USA)
  245. G.729, G.722, and G.723.1
  246. GIF
  247. GNU General Public License Version 2
  248. GSM
  249. Gemalto v. phone manufacturers (2010, USA)
  250. Gemstar ruling by UK High Court on 27 November 2009
  251. General introduction
  252. German
  253. German parliament petition against software patents
  254. German patent courts and appeals
  255. Germany
  256. Giles Sutherland Rich on software patents
  257. Giving good presentations about software patents
  258. Glossary
  259. Google
  260. Gottschalk v. Benson ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 November 1972
  261. Gowers Review of Intellectual Property
  262. Greece
  263. Groklaw
  264. Gulf Cooperation Council
  265. HTC
  266. HTML5 and video patents
  267. Halliburton ruling by UK High Court on 5 October 2011
  268. Harare Protocol
  269. Hargreaves 2011 review of UK patent law
  270. Harm caused by all types of patents
  271. Harm to standards and compatibility
  272. Harm without litigation or direct threats
  273. Harmonization of European patent systems
  274. Harmonization of international patent systems
  275. Harms to education
  276. Harvard 2019 study on government technology policy effects
  277. Hewlett-Packard
  278. How other domains are excluded from patentability
  279. How to avoid a specific software patent
  280. How to read patents
  281. How to submit an amicus brief in the USA
  282. Hungary
  283. I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
  284. I4i v. Microsoft ruling by the US Supreme Court on 9 June 2011
  285. IBM
  286. IBM and MS deciding New Zealand legislation
  287. IBM v. TurboHercules in 2010
  288. IEEE
  289. IFOSSLR patent articles
  290. IP Watchdog
  291. IPv6
  292. Ideas for info to gather
  293. Image processing patents
  294. Implicit Networks v. many large companies (2010, USA)
  295. Implicit patent licence
  296. InNova v. 36 companies (2010, USA)
  297. In re Alappat ruling by US CAFC on 29 July 1994
  298. In re Bilski ruling by US CAFC on 30 October 2008
  299. In re Lowry ruling by US CAFC on 26 August 1994
  300. In re Spansion by US Third Circuit on 21 December 2012
  301. Independent invention defence
  302. India
  303. Induced infringement
  304. Inequality between small and large patent holders
  305. Infringement is unavoidable and clearance is impossible
  306. Ingve Björn Stjerna
  307. Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity
  308. Insurance against patent litigation
  309. InteCap
  310. Intel
  311. Intellectual Property Asset Corporation
  312. Intellectual Ventures
  313. Intellectual Ventures v. Google (2014, USA)
  314. International agreements
  315. Interoperability exception
  316. Interval Licensing v. 11 big companies (2010, USA)
  317. Invalid patents remain unchallenged
  318. Invalidating harmful patents
  319. Invention as a whole
  320. Ireland
  321. Is resource usage technical
  322. Israel
  323. JPEG 2000
  324. James Bessen on software patents
  325. Japan
  326. Japanese patent courts and appeals
  327. Java and patents
  328. Jobs and skills
  329. John Carmack on software patents
  330. John Paul Stevens (US Supreme Court Justice) on software patents
  331. Jpeg
  332. Justice Thomas
  333. KSR v. Teleflex ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007
  334. Karmarkar patent
  335. LG Electronics
  336. LG v. Sony (2010, US and EU)
  337. LZW algorithm patent
  338. Latvia
  339. League for Programming Freedom
  340. Legislation in the USA
  341. Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"
  342. Letter to the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on standard-essential patents
  343. LiMux
  344. Links to be processed
  345. Links to information in German
  346. Linus Torvalds on software patents
  347. List of lawsuits
  348. List of patents that appear invalid with reasoning
  349. List of recordings and transcripts
  350. Lodsys
  351. London Protocol
  352. Loser-Pays rule
  353. Low risk
  354. MP4
  355. MPEG LA
  356. MPL and patents
  357. Machine translation of patents
  358. MacroSolve
  359. Main Page
  360. Making leaflets
  361. Malaysia
  362. Mark A. Lemley on software patents
  363. Mark Webbink on software patents
  364. Martin Goetz
  365. Math You Can't Use
  366. Matsushita v. Justsystem ruling by Tokyo District Court on 1 February 2005
  367. Mayo ruling by US Supreme Court on 20 March 2012
  368. Means-plus-function claims
  369. Mexico
  370. Michael Meurer on software patents
  371. Michel Barnier on software patents
  372. Micro-blogging patents
  373. Microsoft
  374. Microsoft Community Promise, and the OSP
  375. Microsoft FAT patents
  376. Microsoft FAT ruling by German BGH on 20 April 2010
  377. Microsoft royalty demands for Android and other non-Microsoft software
  378. Microsoft sells patents to OIN, 2009
  379. Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007
  380. Microsoft v. Barnes and Noble (2011, USA)
  381. Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
  382. Microsoft v. Salesforce (2010, USA)
  383. Microsoft v. TomTom (2008, USA)
  384. Minor reform proposals in the USA
  385. Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2008, USA)
  386. Moonlight
  387. More than business
  388. More than innovation
  389. More than patent trolls
  390. Motorola
  391. Motorola Mobility v. Apple ruling by Mannheim Regional Court on 9 December 2011
  392. Motorola v. Apple (2010, USA)
  393. Mp3
  394. Mp3 audio example
  395. Multimedia Home Platform
  396. NTP, inc.
  397. NTP v. RIM (2000, USA)
  398. NZICT
  399. NetApp's filesystem patents
  400. Netherlands
  401. Network Competition Through Regulation report
  402. New Zealand
  403. Newegg
  404. News 2003
  405. News 2004
  406. News 2005
  407. News 2006
  408. News 2007
  409. News 2008
  410. News 2009
  411. News 2010
  412. No Lobbyists As Such
  413. Nokia
  414. Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)
  415. Nokia v. HTC (2012, Germany)
  416. Non-aggression promise to employees
  417. Non-core problems
  418. Novell
  419. Novell-Microsoft patent deals
  420. OOXML
  421. Ogg Theora
  422. Old history of patents
  423. OpenGL
  424. Open Invention Network
  425. Open Source Risk Management
  426. Open letter on Australian software patents
  427. Opera Software
  428. Oracle
  429. Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)
  430. Oracle v. SAP (2010, USA)
  431. Organising a campaign
  432. Our goals
  433. Pamela Samuelson on software patents
  434. Parabix
  435. Paris Convention
  436. Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978
  437. Particular machine or transformation
  438. Patent Absurdity
  439. Patent Absurdity/Dansk (Danish)
  440. Patent Absurdity/Deutsch (German)
  441. Patent Absurdity/English
  442. Patent Absurdity/Español-Bolivia (Spanish)
  443. Patent Absurdity/Español (Spanish)
  444. Patent Absurdity/Français (French)
  445. Patent Absurdity/Italiano (Italian)
  446. Patent Absurdity/Lietuvių (Lithuanian)
  447. Patent Absurdity/Persian
  448. Patent Absurdity/Polski (Polish)
  449. Patent Absurdity/Português do Brasil (Brazilian Portuguese)
  450. Patent Absurdity/Română (Romanian)
  451. Patent Absurdity/Subtitles
  452. Patent Absurdity/Suomi (Finnish)
  453. Patent Absurdity/Svenska (Swedish)
  454. Patent Absurdity/Ελληνικά (Greek)
  455. Patent Absurdity/Русский (Russian)
  456. Patent Absurdity/Українська (Ukrainian)
  457. Patent Absurdity/עברית (Hebrew)
  458. Patent Absurdity/日本語 (Japanese)
  459. Patent Absurdity/正體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
  460. Patent Absurdity/简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
  461. Patent Absurdity/한국어 (Korean)
  462. Patent Cooperation Treaty
  463. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk
  464. Patent Law Treaty
  465. Patent Litigation Risk Characterization
  466. Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants
  467. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  468. Patent ambush
  469. Patent clauses in software licenses
  470. Patent exhaustion
  471. Patent governance
  472. Patent lawyers
  473. Patent litigation organisations
  474. Patent non-aggression pacts
  475. Patent office case law
  476. Patent offices have financial incentives to approve applications
  477. Patent owners against software patents
  478. Patent ownership does not imply political support
  479. Patent review by the public
  480. Patent standards here are higher than in the USA
  481. Patent troll
  482. Patentability in the USA after Alice
  483. Patentability in the USA after Bilski
  484. Patentable subject matter
  485. Patenting around what will become essential
  486. Patenting data formats
  487. Patenting software in ROM
  488. Patentleft
  489. Patently-O
  490. Patents Act 2013
  491. Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts
  492. Pen and paper patents
  493. Philip Leith on software patents
  494. Philippines
  495. Philips
  496. Phone patent litigation
  497. Please help find these documents
  498. Poland
  499. Pragmatus AV v. YouTube, Facebook, etc. (2010, USA)
  500. Presentation slides

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.endsoftwarepatents.org/wiki/Special:WithoutInterwiki"