E' bandita una gara, con un premio da 2 euro, aperta a tutti gli uomini della lista, su chi nel 2005 affermava:
"I diritti di proprietà intellettuale e, in maniera particolare, i brevetti servono proprio a questo scopo e costituiscono un importante strumento di sviluppo e di crescita per le imprese, soprattutto le PMI, che, per mezzo di essi, possono ottenere un consolidamento dei propri vantaggi di business (quando questi siano basati su qualità e fatti tecnici) non altrimenti conseguibile."
Raf
Il 20/06/2014 17:14, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto:
sono gia' passati 10 anni ?
ostrega se son vecio..
ricordo un tuo mirabile discorso alla camera di commercio di milano (e il mitico magomimmo che aveva piantato le tende a BXL...)
Ciao!, s.
On 20/06/2014 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote:
Lo so che è ancora presto per celebrare sul serio,_______________________________________________
ma confesso una certa soddisfazione.
E' ancora viva nella mia memoria, infatti, la derisione con cui venne
accolta, ormai più di 10 anni fa, la mia (e di molti altri,
fu uno dei primi movimenti pan-europei)
netta opposizione alla direttiva EU sui sw patents.
Io e molti altri fummo definiti "emotivi" e "irrazionali".
La nostra insistenza sul fatto che brevettare il software era
ontologicamente diverso da brevettare altri tipi di invenzioni
etichettata come "masturbazione intellettuale"...
E potrei continuare.
Comunque, all'epoca le Very Serious People erano
schieratate (quasi) unanimamente (anche in Italia, anche a Torino...)
a favore dei brevetti software.
Vogliamo scomettere che tra qualche tempo
molte di quelle stesse persone sosterranno di non essere
mai state a favore? :-D
juan carlos
On 20/06/14 11:01, Carlo Blengino wrote:
Ciarán O'Riordan has put together a summary of the judgement:
"There will be debate about how far this ruling goes, but the direction it goes in is clear: 100% in the direction of abolishing software patents"
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice_v._CLS_Bank_ruling_by_US_Supreme_Court_on_19_June_2014
In mobilità
Il giorno 19/giu/2014, alle ore 20:12, Stefano Quintarelli
<stefano@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
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa