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

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

by meo

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… >>> >>> >>> 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 20, 2014

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

by Stefano Quintarelli

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 >

June 20, 2014

This Tool Boosts Your Privacy by Opening Your Wi-Fi to Strangers

by gianluca

This Tool Boosts Your Privacy by Opening Your Wi-Fi to Strangers [...] And just how does opening your network protect privacy, as Kamdar claims? One goal of OpenWireless.org, says EFF staff attorney Nate Cardozo, is dispelling the legal notion that anything that happens on a network must have been done by the network’s owner. “Your IP address is not your identity, and your identity is not your IP address,” Cardozo says. “Open wireless makes mass surveillance and correlation of person with IP more difficult, and that’s good for everyone.” [...] continua qui http://www.wired.com/2014/06/eff-open-wireless-router/ buon we

June 20, 2014

Giornate di studio "L'attuazione della sanità elettronica" a Trento

by Ducato, Rossana

Sperando di fare cosa gradita, segnalo che il 30 giugno e il 1° luglio si terranno presso la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza di Trento due giornate di studio dedicate a "L'attuazione della sanità elettronica. La prospettiva europea e i profili giuridici, tecnologici e organizzativi del Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico", organizzate dalla Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell'Università di Trento, Gruppo di ricerca LawTech (http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/) in collaborazione con APIHM (Privacy and Information Helthcare Manager Association <http://www.apihm.it>). Il programma dell'evento è disponibile al seguente indirizzo: <http://webmagazine.unitn.it/evento/giurisprudenza/1188/lattuazione-della-s anita-elettronica> La partecipazione all'evento è libera e gratuita. Per il rilascio di eventuali attestati di partecipazione è necessario registrarsi, inviando i propri dati anagrafici e la propria qualifica a: apihm-congressi(a)googlegroups.com Cordiali saluti, Rossana Ducato -- Post-doc Research Fellow in Comparative Law Ph.D. in European and Comparative Legal Studies The Trento Law and Technology Research Group Faculty of Law University of Trento http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/people/rossana-ducato Follow my work on: http://www.ehealthlaw.it Twitter: @eHealth_LawTech Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ehealthlawtech SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1881833

June 20, 2014

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

by meo

hai ragione: una vittoria sui brevetti software è senza dubbio d'aiuto per spingere avanti la riflessione sul sistema brevettuale nel suo complesso. Raf Il 20/06/2014 12:27, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > una vittoria sui brevetti software > è senza dubbio d'aiuto per spingere avanti la riflessione > sul sistema brevettuale nel suo complesso.

June 20, 2014

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

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Come sai, Raffaele, ho seri dubbi sull'intero sistema brevettuale, ben al di là del software... Ma in attesa di leggere in che senso i brevetti software sarebbero uguali a tutti gli altri (per es., meccanici o chimici), osservo che una vittoria sui brevetti software è senza dubbio d'aiuto per spingere avanti la riflessione sul sistema brevettuale nel suo complesso. ciao, juan carlos On 20/06/14 11:33, meo wrote: > vado oltre J.C. : > BREVETTARE IL SOFTWARE NON E' ONTOLOGICAMENTE DIVERSO DA BREVETTARE > ALTRI TIPI DI INVENZIONI!!!!!!!!!! > > Se invece di guardare Paperissima i responsabili della politica > industriale leggessero i testi dei brevetti (TUTTI) si divertirebbero > di più e capirebbero che il brevetto non ha più alcun senso a causa > dell'esplosione della conoscenza scientifica. Il brevetto è rimasto in > vita solo perchè è lo strumento principe per la difesa degli interessi > dei potenti. E qui ricopio J.C.: > "Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo > molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere > mai state a favore?" di tutti i brevetti, dico io. > Raf > > Il 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >> 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 20, 2014

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

by meo

vado oltre J.C. : BREVETTARE IL SOFTWARE NON E' ONTOLOGICAMENTE DIVERSO DA BREVETTARE ALTRI TIPI DI INVENZIONI!!!!!!!!!! Se invece di guardare Paperissima i responsabili della politica industriale leggessero i testi dei brevetti (TUTTI) si divertirebbero di più e capirebbero che il brevetto non ha più alcun senso a causa dell'esplosione della conoscenza scientifica. Il brevetto è rimasto in vita solo perchè è lo strumento principe per la difesa degli interessi dei potenti. E qui ricopio J.C.: "Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere mai state a favore?" di tutti i brevetti, dico io. Raf Il 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > 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

June 20, 2014

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

by J.C. DE MARTIN

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

June 20, 2014

si può fare semplificazione attraverso la complicazione (normativa)?

by Simone Aliprandi

Siamo in attesa dell'ennesimo decreto di modernizzazione e digitlizzazione della PA (dopo i vari decreto Crescita 2.0, decreto del fare, et similia). Queste norme di modernizzazione della PA, in buona parte disattese o semplicemente ignorate, si sovrappongono ad una norma di base che dovrebbe già di per sé essere sufficiente a portare la necessaria innovazione nel settore pubblico: il Codice dell'amministrazione digitale del 2005. Il CAD è un “testo unico” scritto appositamente per poter avere un unico testo di riferimento contenente tutti i principi essenziali per la digitalizzazione della pubblica amministrazione; una norma tanto ampia e lungimirante quanto – anch'essa – ignorata. La domanda che sorge è: si può fare semplificazione attraverso la complicazione (normativa)? Per approfondire questa riflessione, vi segnalo un articolo appena uscito: http://aliprandi.blogspot.com/2014/06/semplificazione-attraverso-complicazi… Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

June 20, 2014

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

by Carlo Blengino

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> 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 > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 20, 2014