ESP's response [LWN.net]

ESP's response

Posted Sep 29, 2010 21:19 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Parent article: Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski

Here's ESP's response:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/esp-to-uspto/

My goal was to limit it to real obligations in Bilski that the USPTO has to implement.

There are many good parts of the Bilski decision, but there are very few solid instructions. I actually didn't find any in the various Bilski analyses that I found online, so I'm very happy to say I found three myself. (The base of the first point, about there being a second majority against State Street, was pointed out by Patently-O.)

to post comments

ESP's response

Posted Sep 29, 2010 21:59 UTC (Wed) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (3 responses)

Thank you, coriordan, for the precise analysis here and in previous discussions.

ESP's response

Posted Sep 30, 2010 14:09 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (2 responses)

Thanks. If anyone wants to help out, then adding links/info to the ESP wiki, or pointing people to it to raise awareness of it is really helpful:

http://en.swpat.org/

In 2002-2005, a few dozen people in Europe gained precious experience in patent policy, but when the big campaign there ended, the knowledge started fading away.

Instead of repeating that mistake each year in a different country/region, now, I try to document everything as I go. That should help others get involved in future.

Implicit patent licence

Posted Sep 30, 2010 22:42 UTC (Thu) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (1 responses)

Returning to a previous issue, I realised I am possibly confused as to what is meant by the implicit patent licence of GPLv2.

There are the general sections 6 and 7 requiring a distributor not to impose further limits on the recipients rights (as seen on the ESP wiki).

But I saw somewhere a comment of Stallman's indicating that in the US any sale carries with it an "implicit patent licence", presumably because otherwise a seller could potentially sue their own customers. He further implied that he had been happy for this not be explicit in the GPLv2 (I guess to "ensnare" as many patents as possible). I don't know how useful this would be regarding redistribution, even in the US.

Implicit patent licence

Posted Sep 30, 2010 23:03 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Below is a quote supporting some of those things. I don't remember him saying that it was better not to be explicit in v2. One think I do remember, but can't find, is that I think he gave the UK as an example of a country where the implied grant wouldn't work or would be narrower.

http://www.fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript

"""We didn't think this was an issue because in the US, when that company distributes the software under the GPL, they're telling people "We have no objections if you do what the GPL says you can do" and so if they tried to sue those same people for patent infringement later, they would lose.

However, we found out that this is not true all around the World. So GPL version 3 carries an explicit patent licence which is following the lead of the Mozilla Public License. I think that was the first one which contained an explicit patent licence. Basically, all this says is that none of the people who distributed the program on it's path to reaching you can turn around and sue you for patent infringement on the patents that covered the code that passed through their hands.

This is not as broad as it could possibly be, but it seems right because it's pretty much the same as the implicit patent licence that US law gives people."""

ESP's response

Posted Sep 30, 2010 4:57 UTC (Thu) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

Thank you! That looks very good :)