- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

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

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