La tenacia delle avanguardie se fondata non si riduce ad affermazione minoritaria

Fiorello

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it per conto di Stefano Quintarelli
Inviato: ven 20/06/2014 17.14
A: J.C. DE MARTIN; nexa@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_June_2014
>>
>> In mobilità
>>
>>
>>> Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli
>>> <stefano@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@server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>
>>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nexa mailing list
>> nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nexa mailing list
> nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
>
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa