<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Announcing Software Patent of the Week</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><atom:link href="https://tlf.disqus.com/announcing_software_patent_of_the_week/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:03:51 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Announcing Software Patent of the Week</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/06/16/announcing-software-patent-of-the-week/#comment-1446198</link><description>&lt;p&gt;One patent you may want to look at is United States Patent &lt;a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6859816.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6859816.html"&gt;6,859,816&lt;/a&gt; Makino, et al.&lt;br&gt;February 22, 2005, (assignee: Sony Corporation), filed January 25, 2001. This&lt;br&gt;seems to be a patent for a case of the Fast Fourier Transform. It looks to me to be&lt;br&gt;invalid on the grounds of one or more of: (a) patent describes a pure algorithm, not an artifact or technical mechanism, or (b) prior art, eg. FFTW, or (c) obviousness. See, eg. &lt;a href="http://www.fftw.org/release-notes.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.fftw.org/release-notes.html"&gt;FFTW release notes&lt;/a&gt; for possible prior art.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Leopardi</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:03:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Announcing Software Patent of the Week</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/06/16/announcing-software-patent-of-the-week/#comment-1446197</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Interesting. I've corresponded with Levine and I think his arguments are provocative, if not always persuasive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The merits of patents in general is an issue I just don't feel qualified to have a definite opinion on. I think that software patents have several characteristics that make them especially bad, so I'd rather focus on highlighting those flaws and leave the broader issue of patent reform to others who know the issue better than me.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:59:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Announcing Software Patent of the Week</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/06/16/announcing-software-patent-of-the-week/#comment-1446204</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Kevin Carson's blog has &lt;a href="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-patents-stifle-innovation.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-patents-stifle-innovation.html"&gt;an interesting post about non-software patents stifling innovation&lt;/a&gt;. Key quote:&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;br&gt;The fuel efficiency of steam engines is not thought to have changed at all during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five. After the expiration of Watt's patents in 1800, not only was there an explosion in the production of engines, but steam power finally came into its own as the driving force of the industrial revolution. In the next 30 years steam engines were modified and improved, and such crucial innovations as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny all came into wide usage. The key innovation was the high-pressure steam engine -- development of which had been blocked by Watt by strategically using his 1775 patent.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jim Lippard</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:58:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Announcing Software Patent of the Week</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/06/16/announcing-software-patent-of-the-week/#comment-1446203</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The Electronic Frontier Foundation's &lt;a href="http://www.eff.org/patent/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.eff.org/patent/"&gt;Patent-Busting Project&lt;/a&gt; is a good resource.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The one that has recently got my attention is C2 Global (formerly Acceris's) &lt;a href="http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=acceris" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=acceris"&gt;VOIP patent&lt;/a&gt;, as per this &lt;a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&amp;amp;siteid=google&amp;amp;guid=%7BD7467632-62B5-4919-B02A-0AF1A37B543C%7D&amp;amp;keyword=" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&amp;amp;siteid=google&amp;amp;guid=%7BD7467632-62B5-4919-B02A-0AF1A37B543C%7D&amp;amp;keyword="&gt;very recent lawsuit filing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jim Lippard</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:34:51 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>