<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law &#187; Software</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/category/software/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:54:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Software IP Detective: Infringement Detection in a Nutshell</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/20/the-software-ip-detective-infringement-detection-in-a-nutshell/id=20495/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/20/the-software-ip-detective-infringement-detection-in-a-nutshell/id=20495/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob Zeidman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Zeidman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CodeMatch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CodeSuite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip enforcement and litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software engineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Software IP Detective's Handboook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secret]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=20495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When copying has occurred, much of the code may have changed by the time it’s examined due to the normal development process or to disguise the copying. For example identifiers may have been renamed, code reordered, instructions replaced with similar instructions, and so forth. However, perhaps one comment remains the same and it’s an unusual comment. Or a small sequence of critical instructions is identical. Correlation is designed to produce a relatively high value based on that comment or that sequence, to direct the detective toward that similarity. If correlation were simply a percentage of copied lines, the number could be small and thus missed entirely among the noise of normal similarities that occur in all programs.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/20/the-software-ip-detective-infringement-detection-in-a-nutshell/id=20495/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance Company Invents Faster Way To Deliver Life Insurance</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[machine or transformation test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hartford]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=20269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday The Hartford announced via press release that it had invented a faster way to deliver life insurance, which is now patent pending.  Can you that be true?  As with many things associated with the law, particularly patent law, a simple, straightforward answer is not possible.  In a nutshell, it is possible that one could patent a method of more quickly delivering life insurance if the process is new and non-obvious.  However, given the law that the United States Patent and Trademark Office is required to apply there will need to be much more than a real world business method, or "pure business method" as they are sometimes referred to.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Patent for Software</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/31/a-patent-for-software/id=20102/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/31/a-patent-for-software/id=20102/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software Patent Basics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[softwre patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=20102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What If you created an automobile engine that could deliver 500 miles per gallon of gasoline would you seek a patent?  I suspect you would because that type of engine would almost certainly be revolutionary.  So why wouldn't you think about patenting a software system that more efficiently manages power consumption for a large office building?  If you could reduce energy consumption by 25% wouldn't that be noteworthy?  Of course, and it should be patentable as well. Legally it doesn't matter whether the advantage is created by an old world mechanical gadget or thanks to the constant monitoring and manipulation of parameters via a computer following instructions.  Both are innovations and both are patentable, and rightly so.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/31/a-patent-for-software/id=20102/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Throwing Down the Gauntlet:  Rader Rules in Utramercial that Breadth and Lack Specificity Does Not Make Claimed Method Impermissibly Abstract*</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/16/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-rader-rules/id=19217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/16/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-rader-rules/id=19217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alappat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[association of molecular pathology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski v. kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biogen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cybersource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hulu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge bryson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge dyk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge lourie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge o'malley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge prost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical diagnositcs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical diagnostics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prometheus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prometheus laboratories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research Corp. Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ultramercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=19217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some will undoubtedly view the Chief Judge’s basis in Ultramercial for distinguishing the ruling in CyberSource as being “slight of hand” and using “mirrors,” but it certainly illustrates the wide gulf of views between the various members on the Federal  Circuit on the patent-eligibility question.  I wouldn’t be surprised (and frankly it needs to happen) if both Ultramercial and CyberSource ended up before the en banc Federal Circuit.  As I’ve noted previously, we’ve currently got what appear to be irreconcilable decisions in the Classen, Prometheus, and AMP cases in determining the patent-eligibility of certain medical (e.g., diagnostic) methods.  With what appears to be similarly conflicting decisions in Ultramercial and CyberSource, the gauntlet has truly been thrown down.  An en banc Federal Circuit needs to step in soon, or the conflagration that currently exists in the patent-eligibility “war” might soon consume us all.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/16/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-rader-rules/id=19217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC on Patent-Eligibility: A Firestorm of Opinions in Classen*</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/01/cafc-patent-eligibility-firestorm-of-opinions-in-classen/id=18927/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/01/cafc-patent-eligibility-firestorm-of-opinions-in-classen/id=18927/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski v. kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gottschalk v. Benson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[machine or transformation test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical diagnositcs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prometheus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prometheus laboratories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[useful tangible concrete]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=18927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That there was a majority (and a dissenting) opinion in the remand of Classen wasn’t surprising. But that there was yet a third “additional views” opinion would likely not have been predicted by anyone. And it is that “additional views” opinion, along with the majority and dissenting opinions, that will certainly generate a “firestorm” through the Federal Circuit, and which may eventually reach the Supreme Court. The judicial donnybrook on the question of what the standard is (or should be) for patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 is about to begin in earnest.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/01/cafc-patent-eligibility-firestorm-of-opinions-in-classen/id=18927/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/07/18/patenting-business-methods-and-software-in-the-u-s/id=18209/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/07/18/patenting-business-methods-and-software-in-the-u-s/id=18209/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Method Basics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software Patent Basics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer implemented methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[machine or transformation test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=18209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101.  The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/07/18/patenting-business-methods-and-software-in-the-u-s/id=18209/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Grave Problem: Counterfeiting, Piracy and IP Theft</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/08/one-grave-problem-counterfeiting-piracy-ip-theft/id=16838/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/08/one-grave-problem-counterfeiting-piracy-ip-theft/id=16838/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 15:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gary locke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job creation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michael wu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rosetta stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world intellectual property day]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=16838</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Criminals are finding that the penalties for intellectual property crimes pale in comparison to the penalties they would receive for trafficking drugs and engaging in other illicit activities.  At the same time, the profit margin for counterfeit software is extremely high.  So the combination of great riches, relatively low penalties and a low likelihood of being caught and you can see why criminal enterprises, including terrorist networks, are becoming major players in the counterfeit software black-market.  In fact, one of the most vicious drug cartels in the world makes an estimated $2.4 million per day selling counterfeit software. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/08/one-grave-problem-counterfeiting-piracy-ip-theft/id=16838/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Impact of the CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum on Protecting Interactive Technologies</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/19/joint-infringement-conundrum/id=16509/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/19/joint-infringement-conundrum/id=16509/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[35 USC 271]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epic Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge bryson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge linn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McKesson Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[method claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 271]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=16509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conundrum created by the Federal Circuit’s joint infringement doctrine and its impact on protecting interactive computer-based technologies got worse last week with McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. McKesson Technologies involved a patented interactive electronic method for communicating between healthcare providers and patients about personalized web pages for doctors.  Judge Linn’s majority opinion (and a “thin” at majority at that) ruled that, because the initial step of the patented method was performed by the patient while the remaining steps were performed by the software provided by the healthcare provider, there was no infringement, direct, indirect, joint or otherwise of the patented method.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/19/joint-infringement-conundrum/id=16509/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Learning from Apple Patent&#8217;s Newsreader for Mobile Devices</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/08/learning-from-apple-patents-newsreader-for-mobile-devices/id=16329/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/08/learning-from-apple-patents-newsreader-for-mobile-devices/id=16329/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Educational Information for Inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer implemented methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsreader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 7574486]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 7921187]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=16329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The patent application was originally filed June 28, 2007, and as a result of delay by the Patent and Trademark Office Apple will be entitled to a patent term that is extended by 830 days.  While patent term extension seems to be a growing problem due to the backlog of applications, let's not focus on the patent term, but rather look at the core of what is being protected and how this patent was obtained.  I'm not going to defend the patentability of this invention, but rather try use this as an illustration of how to read a patent and search for clue in the file history regarding how and why claims are awarded.  It should also demonstrate how easy it can be to distinguish prior art references and overcome rejections if you know what you are doing or are represented by someone who does.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/08/learning-from-apple-patents-newsreader-for-mobile-devices/id=16329/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Problem with Software Patents? Uninformed Critics!</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/the-problem-with-software-patents-uninformed-critics/id=16276/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/the-problem-with-software-patents-uninformed-critics/id=16276/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reissue & Reexamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer engineers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer programmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic foundation frontier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reexamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 6411947]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=16276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Listening to those who code complain about patents is nearly hysterical.  They still haven't figured out that by and large they are not innovators, but rather merely translators.  Perhaps that is why they so frequently think that whatever they could have come up with themselves is hardly worthy of being patented.  Maybe they are correct, but that doesn't mean that an appropriately engineered system isn't patentable, it just means that those who code are not nearly as likely to come up with such a system in the first place because they rarely, if ever, seem to approach a project as an engineer would.  Rather, they jump right in and start coding.  In the engineering world that is a recipe for disaster, and probably explains why so much software that we pay so much money for today is hardly worthy of being called a beta, much less a finished product.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/the-problem-with-software-patents-uninformed-critics/id=16276/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

