Oracle America sued Google, Incorporated in the United States District Court of Northern District of California for Patent and Copyright Infringement over seven patents which were originally issued to Sun Microsystems. Oracle America also sued on Java related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20013546-265.html [email protected] wrote: > Send network mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of network digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: network Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5 (Mishi Choudhary) > 2. while the patent busting goes on .. (Senthil S) > 3. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? (Pranesh Prakash) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:19:27 -0400 > From: Mishi Choudhary <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [fosscomm] network Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > Its true that the law of the land does not allow computer programs /per > se/ to be patented. However we have seen various executive efforts such > as the Draft Patents Manual issued by the Ministry of Commerce and > Industry, DIPP (which did not see the light of the day thankfully > because of community efforts) in addition to patents which have either > been granted or in the process of being examined by the various patent > offices in the country. In our experience of examining these patents at > the Software Freedom Law Center for either re-examinations or research > papers, we have found a large number of patents granted for pure > algorithms. > > The Patents Act, 1970 provides for pre and post grant oppositions to be > filed by any person before a patent is granted and by interested persons > after the grant of patents precisely to challenge the patents which were > irregularly granted. > > > > Section 25. (1) Where an application for a patent has been published but > a patent > has > > > not been granted, any person may, in writing, represent by way of > opposition to > the > > Controller against the grant of patent on the ground? *(f) that the > subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an > invention within the meaning of this Act, or is not patentable under > this Act; > * > > So, this process of filing oppositions, is a way of using the devices > provided by the system to fight the system. That does not in any ways > imply that our stance against software patents as the community has > changed or our fight at various levels, including at the policy level, > national or international has been altered. This is more ammunition in > our fight against this menace and we are taking advantage of the lawyers > and the requisite funding which the FOSS community has to beat them at > their game by using their rules. SFLC has a history of such successes in > a country like the United States, notorious for its attitude towards > software patents and is trying to do similar work in other > jurisdictions. Thus, all efforts by all active organizations like CIS, > Knowledge Commons in addition to what SFLC's is doing should be > encouraged and needs the support of the FOSS community. We are big > supporters of such efforts and are collaborating and would continue to > collaborate with all such efforts. > > > [email protected] wrote: > >> Send network mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of network digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Ashish Gautam/India/IBM is out of the office. (Ashish Gautam) >> 2. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (Venkatesh Hariharan) >> 3. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (Vickram Crishna) >> 4. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (jtd) >> 5. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (Venkatesh Hariharan) >> 6. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (jinesh kj) >> 7. Re: Software Patent Busting at CIS (jtd) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:00:28 +0530 >> From: Ashish Gautam <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [fosscomm] Ashish Gautam/India/IBM is out of the office. >> Message-ID: >> <of1db1c70a.b634cec6-on6525777b.007ba3b0-6525777b.007ba...@in.ibm.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> I will be out of the office starting 08/11/2010 and will not return until >> 08/15/2010. >> >> I am on business travel and will have limited access to mails. I will >> however, be available on my mobile and can be reached at 9810305067 in >> case of emergency. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:50:57 +0530 >> From: Venkatesh Hariharan <[email protected]> >> To: Indian FOSS Community Network list <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [fosscomm] Software Patent Busting at CIS >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:05 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 16:09:33 Krithika wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is filing a pre-grant >>>> opposition to a software patent application by Microsoft. >>>> >>>> >>> As an adhoc measure too it will wind up as agreeing in principle to >>> software patents. The patent law is explicit in not allowing software >>> patents. The "per se" term is (imo) a qualifier to the next parts >>> which state that a programmable machine with software does not >>> qualify. >>> >>> >> Hence we should be opposing software patents not on terms of prior art >> >> >>> or obviousness, but merely on the grounds of being bad practice by >>> the patent office. >>> >>> >> Dear JTD, >> >> It is a bit of a complex issue. There are some people in the patent office >> who agree that this is bad practice, but the question is, who is will bell >> the cat? I see the oppositions proposed by CIS as valuable because it makes >> use of the remedial measures made available to Indian citizens under the >> Patent Act. It is this kind of vigilance that can help us weed out bad >> patents from the system. >> >> I agree with you 100 percent when you say, "we should be opposing software >> patents not on terms of prior art or obviousness, but merely on the grounds >> of being bad practice by >> the patent office." We must point this out to the patent office. I am also >> assuming that, if efforts like that of CIS are successful in invalidating >> bad patents, it will eventually change the evaluation procedures followed by >> the patent office and reduce the chances of bad patents being granted. >> >> Venky >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.fosscom.in/pipermail/network-fosscom.in/attachments/20100811/ae4ff829/attachment.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:20:49 +0530 >> From: Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> >> To: Indian FOSS Community Network list <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [fosscomm] Software Patent Busting at CIS >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> I disagree with the idea that opposition per se will bring about >> improvement. >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Venkatesh Hariharan < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:05 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 16:09:33 Krithika wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is filing a pre-grant >>>>> opposition to a software patent application by Microsoft. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hence we should be opposing software patents not on terms of prior art >>>> or obviousness, but merely on the grounds of being bad practice by >>>> the patent office. >>>> >>>> >>> We must point this out to the patent office. I am also assuming that, if >>> efforts like that of CIS are successful in invalidating bad patents, it will >>> eventually change the evaluation procedures followed by the patent office >>> and reduce the chances of bad patents being granted. >>> >>> I recall when the patent office was being upgraded some 15-16 years back, >>> >>> >> the bulk of the funding came from abroad, by WIPO or its predecessor. Such >> organisations have as their prime motivation the objective of bring >> everything under the purview of patents. They are not interested in the >> smooth functioning of societies in countries like ours. The current >> inability of the office of patents and copyrights to process applications in >> a reasonable timeframe perhaps illustrates how sincere the modernisation >> effort was, in the first place. Ergo, I conclude it was a sham, conducted >> solely in order to lull the public into the belief that new rules brought >> new attitudes of efficiency with them. I would not be surprised to find that >> patents inspectors here are also accustomed to novel means of payments to >> either pass or hold back patent approvals. >> >> >> > > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary Counsel Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
