SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Roy Schestowitz at TechRights reports
Further reinforcing the current trend, software patents' demise in the United States has just been ascertained again.
[...] The latest decision[PDF] [...] from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is eye-catching, but either it hasn't caught the eye of legal firms or they're just trying to ignore it, so we'll be covering it more than we usually cover such decisions.
[...] The ruling is very important because it serves to demonstrate a loss for patent trolls and for software patents (or patent trolls that use software patents, which is typical). The decision criticises patent trolling as well.
[...] So far, based on our research, only one press article has been published about this decision. It's titled "Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling".
The end may be in sight for software patents--which have long been highly controversial in the tech industry--in the wake of a remarkable appeals court ruling that described such patents as a "deadweight loss on the nation's economy" and a threat to the First Amendment's free speech protections.
The ruling, issued on Friday [September 30] by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies Symantec [...] and Trend Micro were invalid because they did not describe a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a notorious reputation in the tech world as a so-called "patent troll", a phrase that describes firms that buy up old patents and wage lawsuits in order to demand payments from productive companies.
Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech
Friday's ruling is also significant because Judge [Haldane Robert] Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.
Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as "fair use" and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as "Section 101", which says some things--including abstract ideas--simply can't be patented in the first place.
(Score: 3, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:49PM
How many people besides your colleagues do you know, that would actually care? My wife might listen with polite interest, my dad might show some vague interest, but other than that I'd have to visit some computer club or FSF meetings to find someone with honest interest...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:32PM
Thanks man. So far you are the only one not to be suckered in by my troll post.
Seriously, I didn't even realize I was trolling. I expected people to laugh and get the joke. [soylentnews.org]
God damn soy beaners are so fucking gullible. Its pathetic.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:13PM
Funny how all the networks crying about how Donald Trump cannot possibly be trusted are doing a great job proving why they themselves are unworthy of trust.
So you're saying we *should* take the news networks at face value? I thought we were talking about being gullible here?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:17PM
I'm saying this story has such little general interest appeal that anyone who thinks lack of coverage by mainstream press is evidence of a conspiracy is a fucking idiot. Soybeans suck at perspective. Its like whatever is right in front of their noses is (a) the god's honest truth and (b) the most important thing in the world.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:43PM
thank goodness we've got you here to call us names
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:48PM
> thank goodness we've got you here to call us names
When facts and humor don't make a dent, what else is left?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:54PM
maybe admit the possibility you're the one who's wrong
or just give up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:51PM
Yeah, I'm wrong ... software patents are totally big news to the people who watch CNN.
Guess you are also one of those fools who thinks his lack of knowledge is proof of conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:28PM
While what you say is true, it's not really relevant. The news are given special mention in the first amendment because they are supposed to report important news, not because they are supposed to report what people want to hear. The protection of entertainment news is a by-product of not being able to define what is important ahead of time.
OTOH, given the way that the interpretation of the second amendment has been distorted I'm just as glad they didn't try to specify the reasons for protecting free speech.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:40AM
What are you, communist or something? This is capitalism, news is what people either pay for to hear or other people pay for to propagate! If it neither sells nor is paid propaganda, it's not legitimate news. (Well, and this is why I find "communist" not such a blatant insult. I'd wish for a mix, if there was such a thing as non-corrupt, competent politicians)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum