<?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 patents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tag/software-patents/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>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>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>
		<item>
		<title>What Happened to the Obama Open Source Initiative?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/21/what-happened-to-the-obama-open-source-initiative/id=15834/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/21/what-happened-to-the-obama-open-source-initiative/id=15834/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drupal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open core]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red hat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott mcnealy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WordPress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=15834</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama reportedly asked McNealy to prepare a report on how the federal government could employ open source software, but as yet, some 26 months later there has been no mention of the report or across the board government adoption of open source software.  The fact that open source software is given away to be used freely demonstrates the problem with finding a sustainable business model and may explain why the Obama Administration hasn't yet presented the report on how the government can use open source software to decrease costs.  You really have a hard time staying in business and focusing on the research, development and product advancements when the product you offer is given away to be used free, or the underlying code that makes it work can be copied and used by competitors without consequences.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/21/what-happened-to-the-obama-open-source-initiative/id=15834/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented Processes</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/14/patent-drafting-defining-computer-implemented-processes/id=15758/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/14/patent-drafting-defining-computer-implemented-processes/id=15758/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<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[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software Patent Basics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[112 guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer implemented methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer programmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enablement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent drafting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[written description]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=15758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So what information is required in order to demonstrate that there really is an invention that deserves to receive a patent?  When examining computer implemented inventions the patent examiner will determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.  An algorithm is defined by the Patent Offices as a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.  The patent application may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.  In my experience, flow charts that are described in text are the holy grail for these types of applications.  In fact, I just prepared a provisional patent application for an inventor and we kept trading flow charts until we had everything we needed.  Iterative flow charting creates a lot of detail and the results provide a tremendous disclosure.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/14/patent-drafting-defining-computer-implemented-processes/id=15758/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trends in Protection on the Edge of the World: News From the Land of the Long White Cloud</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/16/trends-in-protection-on-the-edge-of-the-world-news-from-the-land-of-the-long-white-cloud/id=15341/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/16/trends-in-protection-on-the-edge-of-the-world-news-from-the-land-of-the-long-white-cloud/id=15341/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Snoep</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new zealand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert snoep]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=15341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In New Zealand, patents (equivalent to utility patents in the USA), registered designs (viz. US design patent) and trademarks are subject to normal substantive examination processes.  Fortunately, due to smaller backlogs and a less bureaucratic system, overseas applications filed into NZ are often examined within a year of filing.  Accelerated examination may also be requested with no official fee where applicants need a quicker indication as to the validity of their rights. Further, if you have a corresponding patent right granted in another major patent office, the NZ process can be accelerated assuming the NZ claims are similar to that in the corresponding right.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/16/trends-in-protection-on-the-edge-of-the-world-news-from-the-land-of-the-long-white-cloud/id=15341/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual Property from the Land Down Under, 2010 Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/06/intellectual-property-land-down-under-2010-part-2/id=14788/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/06/intellectual-property-land-down-under-2010-part-2/id=14788/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Summerfield</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gene Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[down under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark summerfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new zealand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=14788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The gene patents issue had been simmering in Australia for some time, with a Senate Enquiry into the subject having been underway for over a year, but with the Myriad decision in the US, and the Australian litigation, it exploded into the headlines.  Within the space of a few months, gene patents became the subject of numerous news articles and opinion pieces (including one by the former leader of the Opposition, and current Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband, Malcolm Turnbull), and a major report on the Australian national broadcaster’s flagship current affairs program Four Corners.  Almost all of this coverage was generally critical of ‘gene patents’, without ever providing a satisfactory definition of the term.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/06/intellectual-property-land-down-under-2010-part-2/id=14788/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don’t Steal My Avatar! Challenges of Social Networking Patents</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/23/don%e2%80%99t-steal-my-avatar-challenges-of-social-networking-patents/id=14531/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/23/don%e2%80%99t-steal-my-avatar-challenges-of-social-networking-patents/id=14531/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:39:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Nowotarski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[avatar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer implemented methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark nowotarski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social network patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=14531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do you think of my jumping buddy over there?  Let’s call him “George”.  George is just one example of the enormous number of inventions being made to serve our newly emerging social networking economy.  George was created using a patent pending process called Evolver.  He’s an avatar that can be transported to any number of different full immersion virtual world networking sites.  Many new companies are forming to commercialize these new social networking innovations.  They are also filing patent applications.  They have many challenges ahead of them to get those patents.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/23/don%e2%80%99t-steal-my-avatar-challenges-of-social-networking-patents/id=14531/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Meaning of &#8220;Open Source&#8221;: Patented by Microsoft</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/09/the-meaning-of-open-source-patented-by-microsoft/id=14289/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/09/the-meaning-of-open-source-patented-by-microsoft/id=14289/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 04:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[osi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun microsystems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=14289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the open source movement grows Microsoft, which is always the 800 pound gorilla in the room, may consider bringing patent infringement suits.  It seems that is the worry of at least one open source group who claims that it is particularly troubling that Microsoft, along with a group of tech companies that includes Apple, is seeking to purchase the Novell patent portfolio. According to the Open Source Initiative, the Microsoft coalition seeking to purchase the Novell patent portfolio has “no incentive to support open source as a competitive alternative to proprietary software.” ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/09/the-meaning-of-open-source-patented-by-microsoft/id=14289/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

