Comments on: Software Patent of the Week: Abstraction and Subclassing Are Not Inventions http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-46810 Steve R. Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:44:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-46810 <p>I was idly following up links when I ran across the website <i>"Moving to Freedom"</i> <a href="http://www.movingtofreedom.org/.%3Cbr%3E%3C/br%3E%3Cbr">http://www.movingtofreedom.org/.<br></br><br</a>><br>Scott Carpenter has a post on Ben Franklin <i>"Ben Franklin on Patents; in which he provides a Selfless model for Sharing and Cooperation; Inspires us with his Generosity; and Lends Moral Authority to the Principles of Free Culture..."</i> <a href="http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/%3C/br%3E%3Cbr%3E%3C/br%3E%3Cbr">http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-f...</a>><br>He quotes Ben as saying: <i><b>"as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."</b></i></br><br></br><br><br><br><br>Ben Franklin autobiography:<br><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/bfaut11.txt">http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/bfaut11.txt</a><br></br></p> I was idly following up links when I ran across the website “Moving to Freedom” http://www.movingtofreedom.org/.
<br>
Scott Carpenter has a post on Ben Franklin “Ben Franklin on Patents; in which he provides a Selfless model for Sharing and Cooperation; Inspires us with his Generosity; and Lends Moral Authority to the Principles of Free Culture…” http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-f…>
He quotes Ben as saying: “as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.”




Ben Franklin autobiography:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/bfaut11.txt

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-34933 Steve R. Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:44:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-34933 <p>I was idly following up links when I ran across the website <i>"Moving to Freedom"</i> http://www.movingtofreedom.org/.<br /><br /> Scott Carpenter has a post on Ben Franklin <i>"Ben Franklin on Patents; in which he provides a Selfless model for Sharing and Cooperation; Inspires us with his Generosity; and Lends Moral Authority to the Principles of Free Culture..."</i> http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/<br /><br /> He quotes Ben as saying: <i><b>"as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."</b></i><br /><br /></p> <p>Ben Franklin autobiography: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/bfaut11.txt</p> I was idly following up links when I ran across the website “Moving to Freedom” http://www.movingtofreedom.org/.

Scott Carpenter has a post on Ben Franklin “Ben Franklin on Patents; in which he provides a Selfless model for Sharing and Cooperation; Inspires us with his Generosity; and Lends Moral Authority to the Principles of Free Culture…” http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/

He quotes Ben as saying: “as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.”

Ben Franklin autobiography: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/bfaut11.txt

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-46809 Noel Le Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:14:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-46809 <p>When they do MikeT they better cite you as prior art. Or yot can file that patent and become a troll. In any case Tim, you should look at the CAFC and its rulings on the enablement and best mode patent doctrines. Basically the Court has specifically ruled that software patent apps can simply give high level functional descriptions of the invention, which has resulted in the issuance of numerous broad patents and many ridiculous patents. This has resulted in vague property lines that require expensive litigation to settle (of course in a common law system this is expected to some extent- bright lines only exists in civil codes- the current rapid fire litigations are not the fault of the system though but of broad patents). Does it mean there are no benefits from software patents or that we should eliminate them. Only if you leap to drastic conclusions. I recommend some light reading on Lemley, Chisum, Mowery, perhaps even Dam.</p> When they do MikeT they better cite you as prior art. Or yot can file that patent and become a troll. In any case Tim, you should look at the CAFC and its rulings on the enablement and best mode patent doctrines. Basically the Court has specifically ruled that software patent apps can simply give high level functional descriptions of the invention, which has resulted in the issuance of numerous broad patents and many ridiculous patents. This has resulted in vague property lines that require expensive litigation to settle (of course in a common law system this is expected to some extent- bright lines only exists in civil codes- the current rapid fire litigations are not the fault of the system though but of broad patents). Does it mean there are no benefits from software patents or that we should eliminate them. Only if you leap to drastic conclusions. I recommend some light reading on Lemley, Chisum, Mowery, perhaps even Dam.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-34932 Noel Le Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:14:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-34932 <p>When they do MikeT they better cite you as prior art. Or yot can file that patent and become a troll. In any case Tim, you should look at the CAFC and its rulings on the enablement and best mode patent doctrines. Basically the Court has specifically ruled that software patent apps can simply give high level functional descriptions of the invention, which has resulted in the issuance of numerous broad patents and many ridiculous patents. This has resulted in vague property lines that require expensive litigation to settle (of course in a common law system this is expected to some extent- bright lines only exists in civil codes- the current rapid fire litigations are not the fault of the system though but of broad patents). Does it mean there are no benefits from software patents or that we should eliminate them. Only if you leap to drastic conclusions. I recommend some light reading on Lemley, Chisum, Mowery, perhaps even Dam.</p> When they do MikeT they better cite you as prior art. Or yot can file that patent and become a troll. In any case Tim, you should look at the CAFC and its rulings on the enablement and best mode patent doctrines. Basically the Court has specifically ruled that software patent apps can simply give high level functional descriptions of the invention, which has resulted in the issuance of numerous broad patents and many ridiculous patents. This has resulted in vague property lines that require expensive litigation to settle (of course in a common law system this is expected to some extent- bright lines only exists in civil codes- the current rapid fire litigations are not the fault of the system though but of broad patents). Does it mean there are no benefits from software patents or that we should eliminate them. Only if you leap to drastic conclusions. I recommend some light reading on Lemley, Chisum, Mowery, perhaps even Dam.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-46808 MikeT Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:27:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-46808 <p>Next thing you know, they'll be trying to patent something like this: "The program is designed to use several contracts that allow a piece of functionality to be implemented differently, but provide an expected set of access points that can be leveraged in a uniform and consistent manner without knowing the details of the specific implementation." (Aka <em>interface</em> types).</p> Next thing you know, they’ll be trying to patent something like this: “The program is designed to use several contracts that allow a piece of functionality to be implemented differently, but provide an expected set of access points that can be leveraged in a uniform and consistent manner without knowing the details of the specific implementation.” (Aka interface types).

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/comment-page-1/#comment-34931 MikeT Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:27:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/08/software-patent-of-the-week-abstraction-and-subclassing-are-not-inventions/#comment-34931 <p>Next thing you know, they'll be trying to patent something like this: "The program is designed to use several contracts that allow a piece of functionality to be implemented differently, but provide an expected set of access points that can be leveraged in a uniform and consistent manner without knowing the details of the specific implementation." (Aka <em>interface</em> types).</p> Next thing you know, they’ll be trying to patent something like this: “The program is designed to use several contracts that allow a piece of functionality to be implemented differently, but provide an expected set of access points that can be leveraged in a uniform and consistent manner without knowing the details of the specific implementation.” (Aka interface types).

]]>