June 2014 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

SCL Technology Law Futures Forum - 26-27 June 2014, London

by Alessandro Mantelero

Segnalo il seguente evento, per chi fosse interessato e si trovasse a Londra in questi giorni. L'evento è co-organizzato dal network EINS, di cui fa parte anche Nexa. http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ev36209 SCL Technology Law Futures Forum - Thursday 26 and Friday 27 June 2014, London Co-organised with EINS Network of Excellence in Internet Science Forum Chair: Dr Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute and Associate Director, Cyber Security Centre, University of Oxford Opening keynote - day one: "Default on? Privacy in a broadcast society - trusting the future" Pat Walshe, Director of Privacy, Public Policy, GSM Association Forum keynote speech: (Sold out for non-Forum attendees) Paul Nemitz, Director, Fundamental rights and Union citizenship European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice Opening keynote - day two: "The Internet of Things" Alistair Maughan, Partner, Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP Programme Thursday 26 June 2014 9.30-10.15 – Opening keynote: "Default on? Privacy in a broadcast society - trusting the future" Pat Walshe, Director of Privacy, Public Policy, GSM Association. The GSM Association is an association of mobile operators and related companies devoted to supporting the standardising, deployment and promotion of the GSM mobile telephone system. 10.15-11.30: Healthcare Chair: Roger Bickerstaff, Partner, Bird & Bird LLP Speakers: Dr Akram Alomainy, QMUL Barry Jennings, Bird & Bird LLP Andelka Phillips, University of Oxford 11.30-11.45: Tea and coffee break 11.45-13.00: Personal Robots Chair: Tim Pitt-Payne QC, 11KBW Speakers: Dr Joss Wright, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford Professor Lilian Edwards, Strathclyde University Professor Burkhard Schafer, University of Edinburgh 13.00-14.00: Lunch 14.00-15.15: Drones Chair: Roger Wiltshire, Deputy European Legal Director, Northrop Grumman Speakers: Peter Lee, Taylor Vinters LLP Nick Miller, Business Director, ISR and UAV Systems, Thales UK Robin Higgons, Managing Director, Qi3 Lachlan Urquhart, University of Nottingham 15.15-15.30: Tea and coffee break 15.30-16.45: Wearable Tech Chair: Judith Rauhofer, Lecturer in IT Law, University of Edinburgh, Associate Director, Centre for Studies of Intellectual Property and Technology Law (SCRIPT). Speakers: Marit Hansen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, Schleswig-Holstein Andrew Charlesworth, University of Bristol Neil Cameron, Neil Cameron Consulting Group 16.45: Day one - closing remarks 17.15-18.15: Forum Keynote speech: "#Bigtrust for #Bigdata and the Cloud? EU Data Protection Reform and the EU-US Safe Harbour" To be given by Paul Nemitz, Director, Fundamental rights and Union citizenship, European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice. 18.15-19.00: Drinks Reception Close of day one Friday 27 June 2014 09.30-10.15: Opening keynote: "The Internet of Things" Alistair Maughan, Partner, Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP 10.15- 11.30: Personal Data Lockers Chair: Hazel Grant, Partner, Bristows LLP Speakers: William Heath, Chairman, MyDex CIC Achim Klabunde, Secretariat of the European Data Protection Supervisor Judith Rauhofer, Edinburgh University 11.30-11.45: Tea and coffee break 11.45-13.00: Panel and audience discussions on Data Reform and Regulating Robots Panel session 1: Where next for data protection reform? Chair: Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex Panel will include: Pat Walshe, Director of Privacy, Public Policy, GSM Association Andrew Charlesworth, University of Bristol Professor Lilian Edwards, Strathclyde University Hazel Grant, Partner, Bristows LLP Panel session 2: Regulating Robots Chair: Dr Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute and Associate Director, Cyber Security Centre, University of Oxford Panel will include: Professor Andrea Matwyshyn, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Professor Alessandro Mantelero, Politecnico di Torino 13:00: Close of Forum -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Research Consultant, Sino-Italian Research Center for Internet Torts at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology Programme Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

June 23, 2014

Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling

by Giovanna Sissa

un articolo che ho scritto all'epoca, con una sintesi di quanto accaduto al parlamento europeo sui brevetti software: http://archivio-mondodigitale.aicanet.net/Rivista/06_numero_4/Sissa_p._16-3… Giovanna Sissa 2014-06-20 22:20 GMT+02:00 meo <meo(a)polito.it>: > E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli uomini > della lista, su chi nel 2005 affermava: > "I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i > brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante > strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le PMI, > che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei propri > vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e fatti > tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile." > Raf > > > Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: > > sono gia' passati 10 anni ? >> ostrega se son vecio.. >> ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e il >> mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) >> Ciao!, s. >> >> On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >> >>> Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, >>> ma confesso una certa soddisfazione. >>> >>> E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne >>> accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, >>> fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) >>> netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents. >>> >>> Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". >>> La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era >>> ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni >>> etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... >>> E potrei continuare. >>> >>> Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano >>> schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) >>> a favore dei brevetti software. >>> Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo >>> molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere >>> mai state a favore? :-D >>> >>> juan carlos >>> >>> On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: >>> >>>> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: >>>> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the direction >>>> it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing software patents" >>>> >>>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_ >>>> US_Supreme_Court_on_19_June_2014 >>>> >>>> In mobilità >>>> >>>> >>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli >>>>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling >>>>> By Jeff John Roberts >>>>> Jun 19 2014 >>>>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to- >>>>> computer-patents-in-9-0-ruling/> >>>>> >>>>> SUMMARY: >>>>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of >>>>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, eliminate >>>>> software patents altogether. >>>>> >>>>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a >>>>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an abstract >>>>> idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. >>>>> >>>>> The court's unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of >>>>> "inventions" that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a minor >>>>> victory for the technology industry and other companies that have >>>>> long claimed about software-related patents. >>>>> >>>>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by Alice >>>>> Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. The >>>>> patent's validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a currency >>>>> transaction network, and which argued that Alice's patent simply >>>>> described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. >>>>> >>>>> "We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic >>>>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a >>>>> patent-eligible invention," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on "the >>>>> draftsman's art" to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. >>>>> >>>>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of thousands of >>>>> patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on a "method" of >>>>> implementing it with a computer. >>>>> >>>>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software patents >>>>> to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of "simply appending >>>>> conventional steps" to an abstract idea in an effort to make it >>>>> patent-eligible. >>>>> >>>>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be obtained >>>>> that "improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an >>>>> improvement in any other technology or technical field." It also >>>>> cautions that the goal of preventing patents that cover abstract >>>>> ideas should not "swallow all of patent law." >>>>> >>>>> Thomas's opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another recent >>>>> case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court invalidated >>>>> patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that applying familiar >>>>> techniques to non-patentable things does not result in a patentable >>>>> invention. >>>>> >>>>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the >>>>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a case >>>>> called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what type of >>>>> subject matter can -- and cannot -- be patented, which in turn produced >>>>> another rat's nest of lower court opinions. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nexa mailing list >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

June 23, 2014

Re: [nexa] 22° Nexa Lunch Seminar - 25 giugno 2014

by Giuseppe Futia

*REMINDER* Vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 25 giugno 2014 dalle ore 13 si svolgerà il 22° Nexa Lunch Seminar dal titolo: "*INTOINO, così l'innovazione è alla portata di tutti*". All'incontro parteciperà *Marco Bestonzo*, ceo di INTOINO. L'ingresso è libero. Coloro che inoltre volessero avere la ragionevole certezza di trovare un panino e una bibita, possono ancora iscriversi entro oggi all'indirizzo: http://lunch22.eventbrite.com/. Webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events. Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-22. Cordiali saluti, Giuseppe Il giorno 19 giugno 2014 14:42, Giuseppe Futia <giuseppe.futia(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui > <http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-22> [image: NEXA] > > 22° Nexa Lunch Seminar > Mercoledi 25 giugno 2014, ore 13.00 - 14.00 > > Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (primo piano) > > http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-22 > INTOINO, così l'innovazione è alla portata di tutti > > Speaker > Marco Bestonzo (ceo di INTOINO) > > This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events > > Il movimento dei cosiddetti “Makers > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maker_culture>" nasce a partire dalla *convergenza > di diverse tendenze* nell'ambito della cultura digitale: strumenti e > componenti elettronici a basso costo, software di progettazione open source > e servizi online per condividere le proprie idee, appassionati che, > programmando attraverso i propri computer, riscoprono la possibilità di > creare oggetti fisici. E' in questo contesto che nasce la startup torinese > INTOINO <http://www.intoino.com/>, la cui esperienza verrà raccontata, in > occasione del 22° Nexa Lunch Seminar, dal suo co-fondatore *Marco > Bestonzo*. > > INTOINO propone dei kit “fai da te” che consentono di *creare veri e > propri prodotti elettronici, senza che siano necessarie competenze in > ambito informatico o elettronico*. Offre la possibilità di configurare in > modo semplice una scheda Arduino <http://www.arduino.cc/> (con un app > store da cui scaricare progetti pronti all'uso), a cui si aggiungono > sensori, attuatori e la cosiddetta INTOINO Bulb (un'antenna WiFI > “intelligente”) per collegare i sensori alla rete per applicazioni di “Internet > delle cose <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things>”. INTOINO > mira a “democratizzare” l'innovazione consentendo a chiunque di trasformare > la propria idea in un prodotto, malgrado l'assenza di competenze tecniche, > con l'occasione di distribuire il proprio progetto a livello globale. > > *Ingresso libero - Saranno disponibili panini e bibite per coloro che si > saranno registrati su http://lunch22.eventbrite.com/ > <http://lunch22.eventbrite.com/> entro il 23 giguno.* > > Speaker - e informazioni supplementari > [image: [marco bestonzo]] > > MARCO BESTONZO è ceo e co-fondatore di INTOINO, pluripremiata startup > torinese i cui kit abilitano anche i non esperti alla creazione di prodotti > elettronici tramite Arduino. Ha ottenuto un dottorato di ricerca presso > l'IIT - Italian Institute of Technology - Center for Space Human Robotics e > una laurea in Ingegneria biomedica presso il Politecnico di Torino. I suoi > interessi scientifici si focalizzano su “mobile health”, ingegneria > bioelettronica, neuroscienze, sistemi per l'aumento della percezione > sensoriale. > > Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all'indirizzo: > http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-22 > > Letture consigliate e link utili: > > - *A third industrial revolution* > <http://www.economist.com/node/21552901>, "The Economist", Apr 21st > 2012 > - Chris Anderson, *Makers: The New Industrial Revolution* > <http://books.google.it/books/about/Makers.html?id=2PQFNrG9n-oC&redir_esc=y>, > Crown Publishing Group, Ott 2nd 2012 > - [Video] *The Economist's Ideas Economy: Innovation Forum on March > 28th, 2013 in Berkeley*, California, "The Economist", Mar 28th 2013, > Berkeley, California > - Il sito Web <http://www.arduino.cc/> di Arduino > - Il sito Web <http://www.intoino.com/> di INTOINO > > Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di > Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” > > Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino > (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca > indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla > società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. > > Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del > mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre > le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con > Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di > incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i > temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social > networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di > espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto > altro. > > Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i > direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico > di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo > staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. > > Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i > “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: > http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. > > Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle > ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". > Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: > http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. > > See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious > about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed > in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise > noted. > > Maggiori informazioni sui Nexa Lunch Seminar e i Mercoledì di Nexa, sono > disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events > Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this > newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription > preferences, please click here > <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. > > Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more > <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved> > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

June 23, 2014

Quo vadis digital privacy? Il presente e il futuro della tutela dei dati personali nell'era digitale - Roma, 26 giugno

by Marco Bassini

Un bell'evento che vi segnalo per questo giovedì a Roma: http://www.medialaws.eu/quo-vadis-digital-privacy-il-presente-e-il-futuro-d… Iscrizioni tramite il form online. Cari saluti, M. --- Dai il tuo 5x1000 alla Bocconi: aiuta a studiare chi merita, anche quando non puo'. CF 80024610158. www.unibocconi.it/5x1000 Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. ---

June 23, 2014

R: Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0ruling

by Fiorello Cortiana

Quoto Raffaele >Non voglio pensar male ed attribuire la posizione di Confindustria alla presenza attiva delle multinazionali straniere in quell'importante organismo, e quindi definirò quella posizione come "ideologica, teorica, astratta".< ma devo dire che un collega di qualche esperienza con cui mi sono confrontato spesso in senato ebbe a dire che " A pensare male si fa peccato, ma spesso ci si azzecca. " Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di meo Inviato: domenica 22 giugno 2014 10.49 A: Marco Ciurcina; nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0ruling Dichiaro formalmente: "NARCO CIURCINA HA VINTO I DUE EURO. LA CONSEGNA DEL PREMIO AVVERRA' DURANTE LA CERIMONIA DEI NOBEL". Non voglio pensar male ed attribuire la posizione di Confindustria alla presenza attiva delle multinazionali straniere in quell'importante organismo, e quindi definirò quella posizione come "ideologica, teorica, astratta". Le PMI non brevettano perchè non dispongono delle risoerse economiche per difendere i loro brevetti sul mercato e nelle aule dei tribunali (un milione di dollari al giorno). Non ricordo più chi ha scritto : "Small companies innovate, big companies patent". Raf Il 21/06/2014 13:52, Marco Ciurcina ha scritto: > In data venerdì 20 giugno 2014 22:20:58, meo ha scritto: >> E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli >> uomini della lista, > posizione ufficiale espressa da Confindustria ed ANIE. > http://punto-informatico.it/1228116/PI/News/brevetti-software-confindu > stria-dice-si.aspx posso documentare la mia qualità di "uomo" e quindi > credo di aver vinto i 2 euro. > :-) > m.c. > > >> su chi nel 2005 affermava: >> "I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i >> brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante >> strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le >> PMI, che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei >> propri vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e >> fatti >> tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile." >> Raf >> >> Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: >>> sono gia' passati 10 anni ? >>> ostrega se son vecio.. >>> ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano >>> (e il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) Ciao!, >>> s. >>> >>> On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>> Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, ma confesso una >>>> certa soddisfazione. >>>> >>>> E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui >>>> venne accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, >>>> fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) netta opposizione alla >>>> direttiva EU sui sw patents. >>>> >>>> Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". >>>> La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era >>>> ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni >>>> etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... >>>> E potrei continuare. >>>> >>>> Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano schieratate >>>> (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) a favore >>>> dei brevetti software. >>>> Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo molte di quelle stesse >>>> persone sosterranno di non essere mai state a favore? :-D >>>> >>>> juan carlos >>>> >>>> On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: >>>>> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: >>>>> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the >>>>> direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing >>>>> software patents" >>>>> >>>>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Co >>>>> urt_on >>>>> _19_June_2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In mobilità >>>>> >>>>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli >>>>>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling By >>>>>> Jeff John Roberts Jun 19 2014 >>>>>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-compute >>>>>> r-pate >>>>>> nts-in-9-0-ruling/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SUMMARY: >>>>>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of >>>>>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, >>>>>> eliminate software patents altogether. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a >>>>>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an >>>>>> abstract idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> The court's unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of >>>>>> "inventions" that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a >>>>>> minor victory for the technology industry and other companies >>>>>> that have long claimed about software-related patents. >>>>>> >>>>>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by >>>>>> Alice Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. >>>>>> The patent's validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a >>>>>> currency transaction network, and which argued that Alice's >>>>>> patent simply described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. >>>>>> >>>>>> "We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic >>>>>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea >>>>>> into a patent-eligible invention," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on >>>>>> "the draftsman's art" to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of >>>>>> thousands of patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on >>>>>> a "method" of implementing it with a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software >>>>>> patents to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of "simply >>>>>> appending conventional steps" to an abstract idea in an effort to >>>>>> make it patent-eligible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be >>>>>> obtained that "improve the functioning of the computer itself or >>>>>> effect an improvement in any other technology or technical >>>>>> field." It also cautions that the goal of preventing patents that >>>>>> cover abstract ideas should not "swallow all of patent law." >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas's opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another >>>>>> recent case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court >>>>>> invalidated patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that >>>>>> applying familiar techniques to non-patentable things does not >>>>>> result in a patentable invention. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the >>>>>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a >>>>>> case called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what >>>>>> type of subject matter can - and cannot - be patented, which in >>>>>> turn produced another rat's nest of lower court opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >>>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nexa mailing list >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 23, 2014

Esclusiva Radio Radicale. Oggi alle 19 e 30. Parla P.G., imprenditore, titolare di un sito informativo, "vittima" di uno degli ordini di AGCOM sul diritto d'autore. "Non sono un pirata e fornisco un servizio informativo gratuito",

by Fulvio Sarzana

Non sono un pirata e fornisco un servizio informativo gratuito, cosi P.G. imprenditore, racconterà la sua storia in diretta su Radio Radicale nellambito della trasmissione presiperilweb, diretta da Marco Scialdone, Marco Perduca e Fulvio Sarzana. P.G. racconterà lordine di inibizione per il proprio sito web, adottato dallAutorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni. Nella stessa puntata interverranno Carlo Blengino e Marco Bellezza, esperti di diritto dellinternet e Marco Pierani, Responsabile rapporti istituzionali Altroconsumo Alle 19 e 30 su Radio Radicale. ************************************* Fulvio Sarzana di Sant'Ippolito Via Velletri, 10 - 00198 Roma Tel. +39 06 3211553 Tel. +39 06 97614489 Fax. +39 06 97256424 skype fulvio.sarzana <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it ************************************* This message and any file transmitted are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please You should not copy or disclose the contents to any other person. For further information please visit our website at <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it . _____ <http://www.avast.com/> http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> . --- Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus. http://www.avast.com

June 22, 2014

Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling

by meo

Dichiaro formalmente: "NARCO CIURCINA HA VINTO I DUE EURO. LA CONSEGNA DEL PREMIO AVVERRA' DURANTE LA CERIMONIA DEI NOBEL". Non voglio pensar male ed attribuire la posizione di Confindustria alla presenza attiva delle multinazionali straniere in quell'importante organismo, e quindi definirò quella posizione come "ideologica, teorica, astratta". Le PMI non brevettano perchè non dispongono delle risoerse economiche per difendere i loro brevetti sul mercato e nelle aule dei tribunali (un milione di dollari al giorno). Non ricordo più chi ha scritto : "Small companies innovate, big companies patent". Raf Il 21/06/2014 13:52, Marco Ciurcina ha scritto: > In data venerdì 20 giugno 2014 22:20:58, meo ha scritto: >> E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli uomini >> della lista, > posizione ufficiale espressa da Confindustria ed ANIE. > http://punto-informatico.it/1228116/PI/News/brevetti-software-confindustria… > posso documentare la mia qualità di "uomo" e quindi credo di aver vinto i 2 > euro. > :-) > m.c. > > >> su chi nel 2005 affermava: >> "I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i >> brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante >> strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le PMI, >> che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei propri >> vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e fatti >> tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile." >> Raf >> >> Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: >>> sono gia' passati 10 anni ? >>> ostrega se son vecio.. >>> ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e >>> il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) >>> Ciao!, s. >>> >>> On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>> Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, >>>> ma confesso una certa soddisfazione. >>>> >>>> E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne >>>> accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, >>>> fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) >>>> netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents. >>>> >>>> Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". >>>> La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era >>>> ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni >>>> etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... >>>> E potrei continuare. >>>> >>>> Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano >>>> schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) >>>> a favore dei brevetti software. >>>> Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo >>>> molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere >>>> mai state a favore? :-D >>>> >>>> juan carlos >>>> >>>> On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: >>>>> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: >>>>> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the >>>>> direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing >>>>> software patents" >>>>> >>>>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Court_on >>>>> _19_June_2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In mobilità >>>>> >>>>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli >>>>>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling >>>>>> By Jeff John Roberts >>>>>> Jun 19 2014 >>>>>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-computer-pate >>>>>> nts-in-9-0-ruling/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SUMMARY: >>>>>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of >>>>>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, eliminate >>>>>> software patents altogether. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a >>>>>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an abstract >>>>>> idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> The court’s unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of >>>>>> “inventions” that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a minor >>>>>> victory for the technology industry and other companies that have >>>>>> long claimed about software-related patents. >>>>>> >>>>>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by Alice >>>>>> Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. The >>>>>> patent’s validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a currency >>>>>> transaction network, and which argued that Alice’s patent simply >>>>>> described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. >>>>>> >>>>>> “We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic >>>>>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a >>>>>> patent-eligible invention,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on “the >>>>>> draftsman’s art” to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of thousands of >>>>>> patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on a “method” of >>>>>> implementing it with a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software patents >>>>>> to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of “simply appending >>>>>> conventional steps” to an abstract idea in an effort to make it >>>>>> patent-eligible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be obtained >>>>>> that “improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an >>>>>> improvement in any other technology or technical field.” It also >>>>>> cautions that the goal of preventing patents that cover abstract >>>>>> ideas should not “swallow all of patent law.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas’s opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another recent >>>>>> case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court invalidated >>>>>> patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that applying familiar >>>>>> techniques to non-patentable things does not result in a patentable >>>>>> invention. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the >>>>>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a case >>>>>> called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what type of >>>>>> subject matter can — and cannot — be patented, which in turn produced >>>>>> another rat’s nest of lower court opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >>>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nexa mailing list >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 22, 2014

Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling

by Federico Perotto, InnovaLang

Ciao a tutti, Questo scambio di informazioni e battute mi ha stimolato una domanda… Però prima serve una breve introduzione. Lavoro da una decina d’anni lavoro in ambiente brevettuale. Preso alla larga, dato che i primi tempi sono stati dedicati alla formalizzazione e alla pratica di linguaggio e traduzione brevettuale. Le preoccupazioni per il protocollo di Londra prima, e poi per il brevetto comunitario, mi hanno portato in seguito ad analizzare funzionamento ed anomalie del mercato brevettuale, studio che ha iniziato a far vacillare la mia fiducia nei confronti di tale istituto. Nel frattempo più di un docente, presso seminari in EMBA frequentato di recente, ne ha scardinato (talvolta spietatamente) la validità durante le proprie lezioni. Negli ultimi mesi ho ulteriormente approfondito l’argomento, in qualità di consulente per un’agenzia estera specializzata in convalide dirette ed intensificando la partecipazione a convegni dedicati all’argomento da diverse prospettive. Ora sto accarezzando l’idea di avviare una ricerca, nell’ambito di un PhD in cui mi piacerebbe cimentarmi nei prossimi anni, mirata ad analizzare l'impatto del sistema brevettuale sull’innovazione: dai sistemi attuali, passando dal brevetto comunitario, alle tendenze in atto fino a una comparazione con un virtuale scenario patent-free. Insomma, questa sarebbe l’idea di base da sviluppare. Qualcuno qui sa fornirmi qualche indicazione utile a indirizzarmi presso università e/o docenti che potrebbero essere interessati? Grazie mille in anticipo per qualsiasi informazione saprete darmi! Federico Perotto On 21 Jun 2014, at 13:52, Marco Ciurcina <ciurcina(a)studiolegale.it> wrote: > In data venerdì 20 giugno 2014 22:20:58, meo ha scritto: >> E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli uomini >> della lista, > posizione ufficiale espressa da Confindustria ed ANIE. > http://punto-informatico.it/1228116/PI/News/brevetti-software-confindustria… > posso documentare la mia qualità di "uomo" e quindi credo di aver vinto i 2 > euro. > :-) > m.c. > > >> su chi nel 2005 affermava: >> "I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i >> brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante >> strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le PMI, >> che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei propri >> vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e fatti >> tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile." >> Raf >> >> Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: >>> sono gia' passati 10 anni ? >>> ostrega se son vecio.. >>> ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e >>> il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) >>> Ciao!, s. >>> >>> On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >>>> Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, >>>> ma confesso una certa soddisfazione. >>>> >>>> E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne >>>> accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, >>>> fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) >>>> netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents. >>>> >>>> Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". >>>> La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era >>>> ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni >>>> etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... >>>> E potrei continuare. >>>> >>>> Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano >>>> schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) >>>> a favore dei brevetti software. >>>> Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo >>>> molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere >>>> mai state a favore? :-D >>>> >>>> juan carlos >>>> >>>> On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: >>>>> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: >>>>> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the >>>>> direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing >>>>> software patents" >>>>> >>>>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Court_on >>>>> _19_June_2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In mobilità >>>>> >>>>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli >>>>>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling >>>>>> By Jeff John Roberts >>>>>> Jun 19 2014 >>>>>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-computer-pate >>>>>> nts-in-9-0-ruling/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SUMMARY: >>>>>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of >>>>>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, eliminate >>>>>> software patents altogether. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a >>>>>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an abstract >>>>>> idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> The court’s unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of >>>>>> “inventions” that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a minor >>>>>> victory for the technology industry and other companies that have >>>>>> long claimed about software-related patents. >>>>>> >>>>>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by Alice >>>>>> Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. The >>>>>> patent’s validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a currency >>>>>> transaction network, and which argued that Alice’s patent simply >>>>>> described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. >>>>>> >>>>>> “We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic >>>>>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a >>>>>> patent-eligible invention,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on “the >>>>>> draftsman’s art” to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of thousands of >>>>>> patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on a “method” of >>>>>> implementing it with a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software patents >>>>>> to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of “simply appending >>>>>> conventional steps” to an abstract idea in an effort to make it >>>>>> patent-eligible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be obtained >>>>>> that “improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an >>>>>> improvement in any other technology or technical field.” It also >>>>>> cautions that the goal of preventing patents that cover abstract >>>>>> ideas should not “swallow all of patent law.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas’s opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another recent >>>>>> case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court invalidated >>>>>> patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that applying familiar >>>>>> techniques to non-patentable things does not result in a patentable >>>>>> invention. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the >>>>>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a case >>>>>> called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what type of >>>>>> subject matter can — and cannot — be patented, which in turn produced >>>>>> another rat’s nest of lower court opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >>>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nexa mailing list >>>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nexa mailing list >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 21, 2014

Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling

by Marco Ciurcina

In data venerdì 20 giugno 2014 22:20:58, meo ha scritto: > E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli uomini > della lista, posizione ufficiale espressa da Confindustria ed ANIE. http://punto-informatico.it/1228116/PI/News/brevetti-software-confindustria… posso documentare la mia qualità di "uomo" e quindi credo di aver vinto i 2 euro. :-) m.c. > su chi nel 2005 affermava: > "I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i > brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante > strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le PMI, > che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei propri > vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e fatti > tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile." > Raf > > Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: > > sono gia' passati 10 anni ? > > ostrega se son vecio.. > > ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e > > il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) > > Ciao!, s. > > > > On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > >> Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, > >> ma confesso una certa soddisfazione. > >> > >> E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne > >> accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, > >> fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) > >> netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents. > >> > >> Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". > >> La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era > >> ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni > >> etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... > >> E potrei continuare. > >> > >> Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano > >> schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) > >> a favore dei brevetti software. > >> Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo > >> molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere > >> mai state a favore? :-D > >> > >> juan carlos > >> > >> On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: > >>> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: > >>> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the > >>> direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing > >>> software patents" > >>> > >>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Court_on > >>> _19_June_2014 > >>> > >>> > >>> In mobilità > >>> > >>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli > >>>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling > >>>> By Jeff John Roberts > >>>> Jun 19 2014 > >>>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-computer-pate > >>>> nts-in-9-0-ruling/> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> SUMMARY: > >>>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of > >>>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, eliminate > >>>> software patents altogether. > >>>> > >>>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a > >>>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an abstract > >>>> idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. > >>>> > >>>> The court’s unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of > >>>> “inventions” that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a minor > >>>> victory for the technology industry and other companies that have > >>>> long claimed about software-related patents. > >>>> > >>>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by Alice > >>>> Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. The > >>>> patent’s validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a currency > >>>> transaction network, and which argued that Alice’s patent simply > >>>> described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. > >>>> > >>>> “We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic > >>>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a > >>>> patent-eligible invention,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. > >>>> > >>>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on “the > >>>> draftsman’s art” to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. > >>>> > >>>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of thousands of > >>>> patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on a “method” of > >>>> implementing it with a computer. > >>>> > >>>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software patents > >>>> to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of “simply appending > >>>> conventional steps” to an abstract idea in an effort to make it > >>>> patent-eligible. > >>>> > >>>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be obtained > >>>> that “improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an > >>>> improvement in any other technology or technical field.” It also > >>>> cautions that the goal of preventing patents that cover abstract > >>>> ideas should not “swallow all of patent law.” > >>>> > >>>> Thomas’s opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another recent > >>>> case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court invalidated > >>>> patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that applying familiar > >>>> techniques to non-patentable things does not result in a patentable > >>>> invention. > >>>> > >>>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the > >>>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a case > >>>> called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what type of > >>>> subject matter can — and cannot — be patented, which in turn produced > >>>> another rat’s nest of lower court opinions. > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> nexa mailing list > >>>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > >>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> nexa mailing list > >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> nexa mailing list > >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 21, 2014

R: Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0ruling

by Fiorello Cortiana

La tenacia delle avanguardie se fondata non si riduce ad affermazione minoritaria Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it per conto di Stefano Quintarelli Inviato: ven 20/06/2014 17.14 A: J.C. DE MARTIN; nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0ruling sono gia' passati 10 anni ? ostrega se son vecio.. ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...) Ciao!, s. On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio, > ma confesso una certa soddisfazione. > > E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne > accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri, > fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei) > netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents. > > Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali". > La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era > ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni > etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"... > E potrei continuare. > > Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano > schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...) > a favore dei brevetti software. > Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo > molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere > mai state a favore? :-D > > juan carlos > > On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote: >> Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement: >> "There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing software patents" >> >> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Court_on_19… >> >> In mobilità >> >> >>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli >>> <stefano(a)quintarelli.it <mailto:stefano@quintarelli.it>> ha scritto: >>> >>> >>> Supreme Court deals blow to computer patents in 9-0 ruling >>> By Jeff John Roberts >>> Jun 19 2014 >>> <http://gigaom.com/2014/06/19/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-computer-patents-i…> >>> >>> SUMMARY: >>> A new Supreme Court decision will cut down the number of >>> computer-related patents, but will not, as some had hoped, eliminate >>> software patents altogether. >>> >>> The Supreme Court declared Thursday that a patent related to a >>> centuries old financial concept was invalid since it was an abstract >>> idea, even though the concept was implemented through a computer. >>> >>> The court's unanimous ruling serves to narrow the type of >>> "inventions" that can be eligible for patents, and amounts to a minor >>> victory for the technology industry and other companies that have >>> long claimed about software-related patents. >>> >>> The case itself involved a patent for escrow services held by Alice >>> Corp, a shell company regarded by many as a patent troll. The >>> patent's validity was challenged by CLS Bank, which runs a currency >>> transaction network, and which argued that Alice's patent simply >>> described a settlement mechanism that banks have used for centuries. >>> >>> "We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic >>> computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a >>> patent-eligible invention," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. >>> >>> Thomas also cautioned against allowing patents that relied on "the >>> draftsman's art" to turn abstract notions into monopolies on ideas. >>> >>> The ruling appears to call into question the validity of thousands of >>> patents which describe a familiar idea, but rely on a "method" of >>> implementing it with a computer. >>> >>> Although the decision does not unequivocally declare software patents >>> to be invalid, it expresses deep skepticism of "simply appending >>> conventional steps" to an abstract idea in an effort to make it >>> patent-eligible. >>> >>> The opinion does suggest, however, that patents may still be obtained >>> that "improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an >>> improvement in any other technology or technical field." It also >>> cautions that the goal of preventing patents that cover abstract >>> ideas should not "swallow all of patent law." >>> >>> Thomas's opinion drew heavily on the reasoning from another recent >>> case, called Myriad Genetics, in which the Supreme Court invalidated >>> patents over human genes. Both opinions hold that applying familiar >>> techniques to non-patentable things does not result in a patentable >>> invention. >>> >>> The Alice case amounted to unfinished business of sorts for the >>> Supreme Court. In 2010, the court addressed the same issues in a case >>> called Bilksi, but failed to provide any clarity about what type of >>> subject matter can - and cannot - be patented, which in turn produced >>> another rat's nest of lower court opinions. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 21, 2014