http://www.ffii.org.uk Campaigning for open standards, competition and copyright. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:20:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/34#comment-254 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:52:32 +0000 http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/34#comment-254 <p>[...] The Court of Appeal has ruled on two cases involving software patents today. It rejected one and unfortunately granted the other. It was hoped that the ruling would confirm that software development which relates only to new business logic does not have to worry about patent threats. As more and more companies in the United States get tied up in business method patent litigation, this decision should be a big worry for UK companies. The full ruling is here, for those of you that are really keen. If you want some more details or are a member of the press I recommend you check out the FFII&#8217;s comments on the Court of Appeal Judgement in Macrossan and Aerotel. [...]</p> […] The Court of Appeal has ruled on two cases involving software patents today. It rejected one and unfortunately granted the other. It was hoped that the ruling would confirm that software development which relates only to new business logic does not have to worry about patent threats. As more and more companies in the United States get tied up in business method patent litigation, this decision should be a big worry for UK companies. The full ruling is here, for those of you that are really keen. If you want some more details or are a member of the press I recommend you check out the FFII’s comments on the Court of Appeal Judgement in Macrossan and Aerotel. […]

]]> http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/32#comment-253 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:37:37 +0000 http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/32#comment-253 <p>[...] http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/32 [...]</p> […] http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/32 […]

]]> http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/30#comment-220 Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:27:05 +0000 http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/30#comment-220 <p>[...] Go here for FFII&#8217;s review of the situation as it stood on 5 October. Things changed again on 12 October. [...]</p> […] Go here for FFII’s review of the situation as it stood on 5 October. Things changed again on 12 October. […]

]]> http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/17#comment-10 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:49:05 +0000 http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/17#comment-10 <p>[...] The first talk on the Saturday was Stallman&#8217;s keynote, talking about software patents. I have to admit to being in blissful ignorance of this, believing that (for now at least) they were off the agenda in Europe. However it seems that our governments are trying to bring them in through the back door. What they&#8217;re doing now is saying that the European Patent Office alone should be responsible for patents in Europe, instead of it being down to national patent offices. This seems like a sensible idea to me, and likely will to our MEPs as well, until you realise that the European Patent Office has been granting software patents for ages, against existing European law and the consensus formed by the dropping of the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions directive. At the moment the idea is in a consultation period, but if and when it comes before the European Parliament we should encourage our MEPs to reject it at the first reading. [...]</p> […] The first talk on the Saturday was Stallman’s keynote, talking about software patents. I have to admit to being in blissful ignorance of this, believing that (for now at least) they were off the agenda in Europe. However it seems that our governments are trying to bring them in through the back door. What they’re doing now is saying that the European Patent Office alone should be responsible for patents in Europe, instead of it being down to national patent offices. This seems like a sensible idea to me, and likely will to our MEPs as well, until you realise that the European Patent Office has been granting software patents for ages, against existing European law and the consensus formed by the dropping of the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions directive. At the moment the idea is in a consultation period, but if and when it comes before the European Parliament we should encourage our MEPs to reject it at the first reading. […]

]]>