Although it sounds of a malformed naive question, at times patent
applicants do want to copyright their patent. The patent application
may, for instance, include software code, prose, or particular
schematics that would seemingly be amenable to copyright protection.
Published works are no longer required to include any copyright notice, and the PTO has never indicated (AFAIK) that submission without the copyright notice constitutes a waiver or abandonment of copyright protections. However, the failure to include a (c) notice could potentially be relevant to fair-use analysis.
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Friday, May 01, 2015
A New Index of US Copyright Fair Use Cases
Slightly off topic for this blog but I just wanted to mention the U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index.
"This Fair Use Index is a project undertaken by the Office of the Register in support of the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC).
"Fair use is a longstanding and vital aspect of American copyright law. The goal of the Index is to make the principles and application of fair use more accessible and understandable to the public by presenting a searchable database of court opinions, including by category and type of use (e.g., music, internet/digitization, parody).
"The Fair Use Index tracks a variety of judicial decisions to help both lawyers and non-lawyers better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. The decisions span multiple federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts. Please note that while the Index incorporates a broad selection of cases, it does not include all judicial opinions on fair use. The Copyright Office will update and expand the Index periodically."
I found a pointer to this on Wondermark comic site. They note:
"The Index itself is a series of summaries of key legal decisions regarding copyright and fair use, largely from the last sixty years.
"The Fair Use Index includes some watershed copyright cases, such as 1978′s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, the precedent that defines the infringement threshold for copying copyrighted characters for “parody” purposes. It might be said that under the Air Pirates test, the entire product line of the t-shirt website TeeFury is illegal, and I notice that very conveniently, most of their designs are only available in strictly limited, before-they-can-send-us-a-cease-and-desist editions."
"This Fair Use Index is a project undertaken by the Office of the Register in support of the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC).
"Fair use is a longstanding and vital aspect of American copyright law. The goal of the Index is to make the principles and application of fair use more accessible and understandable to the public by presenting a searchable database of court opinions, including by category and type of use (e.g., music, internet/digitization, parody).
"The Fair Use Index tracks a variety of judicial decisions to help both lawyers and non-lawyers better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. The decisions span multiple federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts. Please note that while the Index incorporates a broad selection of cases, it does not include all judicial opinions on fair use. The Copyright Office will update and expand the Index periodically."
I found a pointer to this on Wondermark comic site. They note:
"The Index itself is a series of summaries of key legal decisions regarding copyright and fair use, largely from the last sixty years.
"The Fair Use Index includes some watershed copyright cases, such as 1978′s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, the precedent that defines the infringement threshold for copying copyrighted characters for “parody” purposes. It might be said that under the Air Pirates test, the entire product line of the t-shirt website TeeFury is illegal, and I notice that very conveniently, most of their designs are only available in strictly limited, before-they-can-send-us-a-cease-and-desist editions."
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Patent and Copyright Protection for Software API
the Court’s decision revolved mostly around copyright issues, the court acknowledged the potential relationship with patent laws and indicated that computer software may be covered by both copyright and patent laws.
Copyright protection has the potential to be extremely problematic. However, patent protections are equally problematic. In truth, both forms of protection have inherent balancing factors.
Don’t Reward the Patent Troll that Lies in Wait
They "think laches should still be available, and here’s why: patent defendants and copyright defendants are in very different positions when it comes to defending against stale claims. Patent defendants, unlike their copyright counterparts, often defend themselves by showing that the patent owner’s claimed invention was obvious at the time of filing (thus making the patent invalid). But by delaying a lawsuit, a patent owner can make it difficult for the defendant to find what was known back when the application was filed; records get lost through the passage of time."
"Laches should exist in patent law, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella, because this is a place where patent law and copyright law differ. We hope the Federal Circuit recognizes the important differences between copyright law and patent law, and how patent owners, by delaying, seriously impact the ability of an innocent defendant to invalidate bad patents."
"Laches should exist in patent law, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella, because this is a place where patent law and copyright law differ. We hope the Federal Circuit recognizes the important differences between copyright law and patent law, and how patent owners, by delaying, seriously impact the ability of an innocent defendant to invalidate bad patents."
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
US software copyright registration is game changer
Israeli website Globes English published this claim that US copyright is an alternative to patent registration:
"Every Israeli software company should protect their software with registered US copyrights, says Adv. Mitchell Shelowitz.
"Global software leaders, Including Oracle, Sony, Adobe, Microsoft, SAP, Apple, and Amazon recognize the importance of US software copyrights and have registered thousands. Every Israeli software company should also protect their software with registered US copyrights.
" While Israeli companies are leaders in encryption, network protection, and cyber security, many companies do not realize that their most valuable software assets are dangerously exposed to theft and misuse. Due to a confluence of very recent events, the US legal landscape for software protection has been completely reshuffled - placing US copyrights as the vanguard for software protection."
Thursday, September 06, 2012
The [New Zealand] Patents Bill
The intent of the bill has been that software not be patentable. This is the case in Europe, and there is a lot of evidence that software patents have been stifling innovation, not fostering it. Actual software code can be copyrighted, but under the proposed law change, software will not longer be patentable. This is welcome by most of the local ICT industry. It stops patent trolls and the like.
However some NZ companies such as Fisher & Paykel Appliances said that software embedded in an appliance should still be patentable. The select committee and the Government agreed to this. The problem has been how to define it.
However some NZ companies such as Fisher & Paykel Appliances said that software embedded in an appliance should still be patentable. The select committee and the Government agreed to this. The problem has been how to define it.
Source Kiwiblog
Monday, September 03, 2012
"Clueless" Minister stifles software sector - New Zealand Labour Party
Our growing innovative software industry has been dealt a cruel blow
which will compromise and stifle its potential, says Clare Curran,
Labour’s communications and IT spokesperson.
The National Government’s decision to open the door to the patenting of computer software winds back a simple but vital change to our little known patent law, which has undergone its first review since 1953.
Craig Foss’s decision is a major back-down on the stance taken by the previous Commerce Minister Simon Power to back the unanimous decision of the Commerce Select Committee, following clear advice from officials.
The Patents Bill proposed to exclude computer software from being patentable, because like books, movies or music, it can be protected under copyright law. This was a ground-breaking position which has been generally applauded by the burgeoning New Zealand ICT sector.
The Select Committee accepted that new software inventions are regularly built on existing software, and that software patents were often granted for “trivial or existing techniques.”
The Committee found that using intellectual property in a fair and reasonable manner would promote Kiwi innovation and build advanced industries.
“The last minute amendment by the Government so that software “as such” can’t be patented, but inventions that include software can be, opens the door to widespread patenting of software. The Minister has caved in to pressure from big corporations which fear competition from smaller players.
“That’s a slap in the face to the local industry, and many innovative Kiwi software firms will now face real challenges to develop new software.
“The Minister should have stuck to his predecessor’s plan to get the Intellectual Property Office to develop guidelines for inventions that involves ‘embedded software’, or software that is built into a physical device. That would have been a reasonable solution which would have promoted innovation in one of New Zealand’s emerging industries.
“Labour’s policy is to enact and implement the Patent Bill excluding computer software. That will give our software innovators the best chance to succeed,” says Clare Curran.
Source New Zealand Labour Party released under Creative Commons licence CC BY ND NZ
The National Government’s decision to open the door to the patenting of computer software winds back a simple but vital change to our little known patent law, which has undergone its first review since 1953.
Craig Foss’s decision is a major back-down on the stance taken by the previous Commerce Minister Simon Power to back the unanimous decision of the Commerce Select Committee, following clear advice from officials.
The Patents Bill proposed to exclude computer software from being patentable, because like books, movies or music, it can be protected under copyright law. This was a ground-breaking position which has been generally applauded by the burgeoning New Zealand ICT sector.
The Select Committee accepted that new software inventions are regularly built on existing software, and that software patents were often granted for “trivial or existing techniques.”
The Committee found that using intellectual property in a fair and reasonable manner would promote Kiwi innovation and build advanced industries.
“The last minute amendment by the Government so that software “as such” can’t be patented, but inventions that include software can be, opens the door to widespread patenting of software. The Minister has caved in to pressure from big corporations which fear competition from smaller players.
“That’s a slap in the face to the local industry, and many innovative Kiwi software firms will now face real challenges to develop new software.
“The Minister should have stuck to his predecessor’s plan to get the Intellectual Property Office to develop guidelines for inventions that involves ‘embedded software’, or software that is built into a physical device. That would have been a reasonable solution which would have promoted innovation in one of New Zealand’s emerging industries.
“Labour’s policy is to enact and implement the Patent Bill excluding computer software. That will give our software innovators the best chance to succeed,” says Clare Curran.
Source New Zealand Labour Party released under Creative Commons licence CC BY ND NZ
Friday, February 25, 2011
Glyn Moody Submission to UK Independent Review
In his Open Enterprise blog Glyn Moody has provided a late draft of his submission to the UK Independent Review of "IP" and Growth. Hecovers both software patents and digital copyright in his submission. The following is purely related to his points on Software patents.
His submission includes:
"There are two central problems with software patents. First, software is essentially a series of algorithms - sets of computer operations; algorithms are purely mathematical techniques; which means that software patents are patents on mathematics - that is, pure knowledge. Attempts to frame software patents are being “applications” of this knowledge “in the real world” have failed dismally to draw any convincing dividing line between knowledge and its application, or between the “real world” and the digital one that exists inside computers. "The other problem is that software patents are often granted on key ideas that cannot be coded around. This creates a kind of choke hold on knowledge. The situation has got so bad that programmers no longer investigate whether their code infringes on software patents, since it is almost inevitable that it does - so many broad and trivial patents have now been granted around the world. Moreover, in the US penalties for infringement are trebled if there is “knowing” infringement, which leads to the ridiculous situation that it is better not to try to find out whether you are infringing."His submission continues in a similar vein and concludes "to promote the UK computer industry, and encourage innovation here, software patents of all kinds should be eliminated"
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Florian Mueller on Android Round 2
A few days ago I reported that Florian Müller had found some proprietary code in the Android code base and various bloggers from ZD Net and Ars Technica had disputed his claims.
Müller has now published a rebuttal of the ZD Net rebuttals. His claims broadly are
Müller has given links to where he found the code he considers infringing, so anyone wanting to verify his claims is able to do so.
The Oracle Android suit is about both patents and copyright. Müller is known as a software patent commentator, but Müller is only addressing the copyright issues in his post. (That's not a criticism, just an observation).
Müller has now published a rebuttal of the ZD Net rebuttals. His claims broadly are
- He did find proprietary Oracle code with licences altered in the Android code,
- He did find this Oracle code in more than one Android device,
- He did not claim it was in every Android device,
- The counter arguments against his discovery are largely straw men.
Müller has given links to where he found the code he considers infringing, so anyone wanting to verify his claims is able to do so.
The Oracle Android suit is about both patents and copyright. Müller is known as a software patent commentator, but Müller is only addressing the copyright issues in his post. (That's not a criticism, just an observation).
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Florian Mueller on Android Patent Case
The blogs are all abuzz this morning on this blog posting by renown software patent expert and campaigner Florian Müller. The standard statement seems to be that his findings seriously weaken Google's defence against Oracle's patent claims over Android's Dalvik not-really-a-jvm jvm.
Müller himself doesn't seem to go that far. My reading of his blog posting is that what he has done is compare a number of source files and shown that Google's source files appear to be direct copies of Sun Java source files that were not released by Sun / Oracle under an open source license that permits Google's use or relicensing. He also reports that it looks like someone has attempted to disguise this copying.
Oracle are suing Google over both patent and copyright for Android. The facts Müller reported would certainly have a bearing on the copyright claims. I can't see where Müller makes claims that his analysis could be directly relevant to the patent claim.
Update (23 Jan 2011 16:34 NZT)
Müller's analysis isn't uncontested. ZD Net blogger Ed Burnette has posted disputing the importance of the file copying Müller reported. While fellow ZD Net blogger Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has updated his earlier posting to include a rebuttal from Android Central.
Meanwhile Müller through his twitter page @FOSSpatents has said that he he intends to post a follow-up article addressing points made by these articles. I'm not sure which of the articles he was referring to when he said "That article attacks strawmen put up by its author, and contains factual errors"
This looks like there is more to be said by both sides of the argument.
Müller himself doesn't seem to go that far. My reading of his blog posting is that what he has done is compare a number of source files and shown that Google's source files appear to be direct copies of Sun Java source files that were not released by Sun / Oracle under an open source license that permits Google's use or relicensing. He also reports that it looks like someone has attempted to disguise this copying.
Oracle are suing Google over both patent and copyright for Android. The facts Müller reported would certainly have a bearing on the copyright claims. I can't see where Müller makes claims that his analysis could be directly relevant to the patent claim.
Update (23 Jan 2011 16:34 NZT)
Müller's analysis isn't uncontested. ZD Net blogger Ed Burnette has posted disputing the importance of the file copying Müller reported. While fellow ZD Net blogger Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has updated his earlier posting to include a rebuttal from Android Central.
Meanwhile Müller through his twitter page @FOSSpatents has said that he he intends to post a follow-up article addressing points made by these articles. I'm not sure which of the articles he was referring to when he said "That article attacks strawmen put up by its author, and contains factual errors"
This looks like there is more to be said by both sides of the argument.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Panelists mix it up at ReMIX08
By Brian Finnerty.
In particular, I thought Anil Dash from Six Apart and Jeff Attwood of Coding Horror fame had much to say about what defines open source development, community participation, and the messy tangle of software patents and copyright limits. ...
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
How To Copyright And Patent Your Software
By georgiaavenue3463
Of course, if this is not enough fun for you, you can try to deal with the red tape involved in dealing with multiple governments to resolve any issues or disputes that may have arisen from your software patents. ...
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Richard Stallman interviewed by Michael Reilly in the New Scientist
By sschmoller "He has been the GNU project's leader ever since and has "dedicated his life to advocating the use of free software and campaigning against software patents and restrictive copyright laws". I was luck enough hear Stallman in Sheffield ...
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Free speech vs. at least one patent (and copyright)
Free speech vs. at least one patent (and copyright)
The ACLU has filed a brief [1] (pdf [2]) in the US patent case called Bilski (a case I understand the End Software Patents [3] project is watching closely) making a free speech argument against the patent in question. ...
ACLU: abstract patents violates constitution
By vuorio FFII says hi; it's great to see a major civil rights organization to bring this up in the patents sphere. With enough exposure, hopefully the insanity of business and software patents may come to an end some day...
How To Copyright And Patent Your Software
How To Copyright And Patent Your Software
By seijalblog4644 A "software patent" has no universal understanding. In general, owning a patent allows a company certain rights (or exclusivity) for a prescribed amount of time. Individuals or corporations seeking a patent must apply for a patent in ...
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Week4-Copyright Laws
Week4-Copyright Laws
By KAMILI(KAMILI) This portrait is dominated by a system lawyers and legislators whose sole purpose is to expand the number of software patents, resulting in the present loss of previously unregulated works in the public domain or those subject to fair ...
Sunday, April 24, 2005
FSF - India Hails Dropping of Software Patents
Free Software Foundation - India
Editor's note: Normally I just reprint a paragraph or so and a pointer to the original document. I've deviated from that this time as the release is currently on the front page of the FSF - India web site and I have been unable to locate a permanent link. Luckily the FSF permits verbatim reprinting, so I've decided to do this for once.
Press Release
The Free Software Foundation of India hails the decision to drop the Amendments to the Indian Patents Act, 1970, with regard to computer programs. We specially thank the Left Parties for their conscious effort to get this draconian amendment removed, and all the Members of Parliament for avoiding this dangerous pitfall. The amendment would have seriously affected the freedom of software users and developers.
Free Software freedom has enabled us to provide localisation in Indic-languages, for a wide range of software applications, widely extending the reach of computers to the masses. Free software is not just about development of robust, secure and sturdy software but it addresses the larger issues pertaining to the society such as digital divide by increasing free access to technology. In a situation where India is emerging strong in the field of Information technology, such a law should have been disastrous, leading to monopolisation by mega corporations leading to closure of many software units, leaving many jobless.
We are very happy to register our gratitude for restoring the status quo, in line with our international obligations under TRIPS, and for giving considerable peace of mind to the computing community.
But unfortunately, we have come to know that the Indian Patent Office has issued a few patents relating to computer programs, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970, that should be revoked and cancelled. We request that necessary action and steps may be taken in this regard to avoid any issues under such patents.
On behalf of FSF India
Y. Kiran Chandra
Member All India Work Group
Free Software Foundation of India.
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation of India.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Editor's note: Normally I just reprint a paragraph or so and a pointer to the original document. I've deviated from that this time as the release is currently on the front page of the FSF - India web site and I have been unable to locate a permanent link. Luckily the FSF permits verbatim reprinting, so I've decided to do this for once.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
IBM Accused of pro-patent extremism
In an article dated December 2004, Russell McOrmond reported that when he recently did an Access to Information request of the Canadian Government to find out how Canada went from denying software patents to granting them, the expected extremists showed up, but the only major technology company that shows up in this "pro-software-patent extremism" is IBM.
Full article at Digital Copyright Canada.
Monday, April 11, 2005
IBM to profit by making patents available free?
I.B.M. is renowned for its rich storehouse of patented inventions. It once again led the research sweepstakes in America last year, collecting 3,248 patents, more than any other company. And it earned more than $1 billion last year from licensing and selling its ideas.
So why has I.B.M. shifted course recently, giving away some of the fruits of its research instead of charging others to use it? The answer is self-interest.
Diverging from conventional wisdom, the company has calculated that sharing technology can sometimes be more profitable than jealously guarding its property rights on patents, copyrights and trade secrets. The moves by I.B.M., the world's largest supplier of information technology services and computers, are being closely watched throughout the business world
More at HeraldTribune.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)