Talk:Software patent

message: In my perception, the designation "software patent" is informal. Yes, imho there must be a Wikipedia artice under that name, simply because this (informal) designation is widely used. But at the same time, due to its informal nature, there is no reason to attempt a definition. The scope of the issue is best defined as: what patent applications may be affected by the exclusion in art. 52 EPC? For America, this definition may not be satisfactory, but then again in American patent law, software patentability never was an issue, at least not under this name. The Americans rather objected the patentability of "mathematical algorithms" for several decades.
There is reason to argue that "software patent" is not just informal, but even incorrect terminology at an "ontological" level. Because patent law basically only covers "tricks", not the resulting realisations, conceivably a patent may be implementable both in hardware and software. Rbakels (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Should we make a section that describes patent law in New Zealand and how software patents are illegal there by a recent law passed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source? GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: new zealand

message: From the Why software patents are a joke, literally article by Ed Burnette, it says that: A former Sun/Oracle employee admits that developers created patents in a contest to see who could get the goofiest patent through the system. Now Oracle is using patents from the same folks as the basis for its lawsuit against Google. How much that the software patent has a "knee-jerking" history. Perhaps there is a need to address this. Komitsuki (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent for fun? 

message: I think (my POV) that software patents are important -- that a patent in and of itself constitutes a valid secondary source since it's validation by a second (impartial) entity -- a government agency charged with saying that a method or process is new. If you are a software writer, patent attorney, or work in the computer industry or otherwise have a view on this, I urge you to weigh in on the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian‎.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 846 patents might be notable. 26 isn't. GDallimore (Talk) 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree. One software patent would be notable depending on what it did. Where did you get the figure 846 from? Are you joking?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you bother following the link I've provided? And, yes, one patent on one worthwhile invention could make someone notable, but you've failed to provide any evidence that any of these inventions are worthwhile or notable. GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you have a different perspective if you are, in fact, a patent attorney. Perhaps for you patents are like chocolate bars or dimestore candy. But for the rest of us, you know, everyday people, a patent is a big thing -- a new invention, a new capability or process or method which advances human capability, a marker deeming an invention worthy of legal protection by the government. If somebody has 26 patents, I respect that. I believe the computer industry has been evolving at such a frantic pace that none of us knows what this means yet, but perhaps we will in time. What I am claiming is that a patent is, in and of itself, notable. I'm only a handyman so I doubt I could explain what Killian's inventions do; but I bet there are people reading this, here on this page, who could explain what Killian's inventions are and why they're significant. I followed your link and I was enlightened about the inventors with hundreds of inventions, led by Thomas Edison; thank you for sharing this. I still believe patents are an excellent example of Wikipedia's secondary sources -- one step removed, with an impartial referee looking at primary materials (inventions) and making a judgment -- an analytical claim. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to include computer scientists with multiple patents in Wikipedia. One other thing about Killian -- with two others, he founds a company (QED) -- a few years later, it's valued at several billion dollars (according to NY Times) -- isn't that notable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread is getting rather off-topic from software patents, but I should note that patents aren't secondary sources by any means, nor are they necessarily a "big thing". At the risk of over generalizing: anything that's new can be patented, even if it's inefficient, impractical, or downright idiotic. Second, patents don't comment on the invention or the inventor, they are drafted by the inventor or their agents and largely edited by the same and so would be primary sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Earl Killian]] has 26 software patents and he's up for deletion

message: http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ Ottawahitech (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Yahoo patents could throw a monkey wrench into Facebook’s IPO hopes 

message: There are many more software patent cases in Germany than tin the UK. Presently I do no have the time to write an article myself (and to risk that it will be removed because someone found "original research" or whatever). Rbakels (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German software patents 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=C1856F2A-F214-4A65-A8C1-4B6CBC1CEED5
*:Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that was a mismatch (bcbr != cbr), but I removed it anyway (404). –Be..anyone (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The hopeless Patent Commons stub needs a home, not necessarily here.–Be..anyone (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent Commons 

message: Without a separate article on each of mass peer review and patent bounty, it is going to be very difficult to describe what Peer to Patent means relative to software patents, nor how the risk of software patent ambiguity and applicability is managed by real attorneys.
Do some web searches and you'll realize very quickly that these are very widely used terms and at least need to be redirects to whatever article.  Neither term is going away and both are fundamental to modern software patent practice, and not only in the US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.57.99 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass peer review, patent bounty 

message: In the section on Japan, a purported example is given of a software patent that was successfully enforced. However, the enforcement was overturned on appeal. I would hardly call that a "successful" enforcement! Are there any other examples? Hairy Dude (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Successfully enforced" in Japan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Software patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327115425/http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf to http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070621083254/http://www.miplc.de/research/master_theses/2004_2005/abstracts/abstract_laub.pdf to http://www.miplc.de/research/master_theses/2004_2005/abstracts/abstract_laub.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604193602/http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects to http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115203127/http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-01/sunflash.20050125.2.xml to http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-01/sunflash.20050125.2.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At Arrow information paradox (should that page and/or this paper and/or the other, be linked from this WP article, maybe in "See also" (or from similar articles and/or the debate-one?)?), I came across:
:Cornell Law School professor Oskar Liivak has written in a paper for a conference at Stanford University that Arrow's "paper has been one of the foundational theoretical pillars of the incentive based theory of patents as Arrow’s work is thought to rule out a strictly market-based solution."
That paper is this one: "The (Relatively) Easy Case for Patents on Inventions" that says:
"This article
shows that, as to a market for technological ideas or information generally, those suspicions
are likely correct, yet, the narrative introduced here focuses on something narrower:
the voluntary market exchange of inventions. Inventions are special packages of
information coupling technological and economic parameters into a modular thing that
interfaces with the overall price system. This article shows that a patent system that
supports such a market in inventions can be economically justified relatively
unambiguously."
I still haven't read much further, just search for software patent, found noting except for software (only really this footnote):
"14 See JAMES BOYLE, SHAMANS, SOFTWARE, AND SPLEENS 253 (1996) (describing support for the “current
system” as “an article of religious faith”); see also BESSEN & MEURER, supra note 3 at 74(quoting James
Boyle as discussing IP policy not on empirical evidence but instead on “faith-based” reasoning)." comp.arch (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The (Relatively) Easy Case for Patents on Inventions" - does not apply to software/method patents? 

message: When searched for in a Wikipedia search bar, the small blurb for this article reads "concept introduced to create an undue monopoly." Unsure where this content can be changed but I think it's clear it should be. 66.175.245.1 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search summary 

message: Especially the Apache mpl and gpl licenses now including patent grants to what are essentially only computer software in copyright only Slinkyw (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent rights in software governed by copyright worries me 

message: The Armenia paragraph does not make sense to me. I checked the source article, and the paragraph appears to quote the exact wording of the source article. I suspect a translation issue. Scott McNay (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have removed the section. This cannot be true. Edcolins (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenia