VI. Secondary Sources
Summary of America Invents Act, National Law Review
IP: New Weapons in the War against Bad Patents, InsideCounsel
The Broken Patent System: How We Got Here and How to Fix It, The Verge
Are Software Patents Evil?, Paul Graham
The History of Software Patents: From Benson, Flook, and Diehr to Bilski and Mayo v. Prometheus, BitLaw
USPTO Software Partnership, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Software Patents: Obstacles to Software Development, Open Software Foundation
Court Ruling Opens the Door to Rejecting Many Software Patents as Being Mere 'Mental Processes', Mike Masnick, TechDirt
Patent Act of 1952: Standard of Proof, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, Harvard Law Review, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 351 (2011)
What the i4i-Microsoft Patent Case Means for Software Users, Dennis O’Reilly, CNET
Patently Absurd, Simson L. Garfinkel, Wired Magazine (2.07)
History of Software Patents III: In re Alappat
Why Protect Software through Patents, BitLaw
Patents for Software-Related Inventions, Jeffrey R. Kuester and Ann K. Moceyunas
Software Patents – Obstacles to Software Development, transcript of a talk by Richard Stallman presented in 2002 at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
Software Patent Institute
Patent Fail: In Defense of Innovation, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming, Mark Lemley
Defend Innovation: Open Up the Patent-Granting Process (see also, Appendix A)
From Lexis:
Garrett. Patentability: Piecing Together the Computer Software Patent Puzzle. 19 St Louis U L J 351.
1A Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 3, Software Protection § 3.03.
1A Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 3A, Patent Protection of Software §§ 3A.02-3A.04, 3A.07, 3A.09, 3A.10, 3A.14.
2 Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 4, Copyright Protection of Software § 4.04.
Process Patents for Computer Programs. 56 Cal L Rev 466, 1968.
Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs: Are Patents Now Obtainable? 26 Catholic U L Rev 835, Summer 1977.
Bender. Computer Programs: Should They be Patentable? 68 Columbia L Rev 241, 1968.
Becker. Means-Plus-Function Claims in Computer Related Patent Applications Within the United States, 5 Computer L J 25, Summer 1984.
Samuels; Samuels. The Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions. 6 Corp L Rev 144, Spring 1983.
von Spakovsky; von Spakovsky; Graffeo. The Limited Patenting of Computer Programs: A Proposed Statutory Approach. 16 Cum L Rev 27, 1985-1986.
Computer Programs and Proposed Revisions of the Patent and Copyright Laws. 81 Harv L Rev 1541, 1968.
Nimtz. Development of the Law of Computer Software Protection. 61 J Pat Off Soc 3, January 1979.
Patent Law--Computer Programs for Processing Data With a Digital Computer Cannot Be Patented Under Present United States Laws. 4 Loyola U L J 560, Summer 1973.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 1, Eligible Subject Matter §§ 1.02, 1.03.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 2, Originality § 2.02.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 3, Novelty §§ 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.08.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 4, Utility §§ 4.01, 4.02, 4.04.
2 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 5, Non-obviousness §§ 5.03, 5.04.
2 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 6, Statutory Bars §§ 6.02, 6.04.
Casey. Means plus function claims after Markman [Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996)]: is claim construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, P 6 a question of fact or an issue of law? 79 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc'y 841, December 1997.
Block. Adequate Disclosure of Computers and Programs for Computers in Patent Specifications. 56 J POS 574, Spring 1974.
Galbi. The Unpatentability of Computer Programs. 1967 Patent L Ann 147.
Nimtz. The Patentability of Computer Programs. 1970 Rutgers J of Computers & the L 38.
VII. Brief Summation
IP: New Weapons in the War against Bad Patents, InsideCounsel
The Broken Patent System: How We Got Here and How to Fix It, The Verge
Are Software Patents Evil?, Paul Graham
The History of Software Patents: From Benson, Flook, and Diehr to Bilski and Mayo v. Prometheus, BitLaw
USPTO Software Partnership, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Software Patents: Obstacles to Software Development, Open Software Foundation
Court Ruling Opens the Door to Rejecting Many Software Patents as Being Mere 'Mental Processes', Mike Masnick, TechDirt
Patent Act of 1952: Standard of Proof, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, Harvard Law Review, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 351 (2011)
What the i4i-Microsoft Patent Case Means for Software Users, Dennis O’Reilly, CNET
Patently Absurd, Simson L. Garfinkel, Wired Magazine (2.07)
History of Software Patents III: In re Alappat
Why Protect Software through Patents, BitLaw
Patents for Software-Related Inventions, Jeffrey R. Kuester and Ann K. Moceyunas
Software Patents – Obstacles to Software Development, transcript of a talk by Richard Stallman presented in 2002 at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
Software Patent Institute
Patent Fail: In Defense of Innovation, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming, Mark Lemley
Defend Innovation: Open Up the Patent-Granting Process (see also, Appendix A)
From Lexis:
Garrett. Patentability: Piecing Together the Computer Software Patent Puzzle. 19 St Louis U L J 351.
1A Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 3, Software Protection § 3.03.
1A Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 3A, Patent Protection of Software §§ 3A.02-3A.04, 3A.07, 3A.09, 3A.10, 3A.14.
2 Computer Law (Matthew Bender), ch 4, Copyright Protection of Software § 4.04.
Process Patents for Computer Programs. 56 Cal L Rev 466, 1968.
Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs: Are Patents Now Obtainable? 26 Catholic U L Rev 835, Summer 1977.
Bender. Computer Programs: Should They be Patentable? 68 Columbia L Rev 241, 1968.
Becker. Means-Plus-Function Claims in Computer Related Patent Applications Within the United States, 5 Computer L J 25, Summer 1984.
Samuels; Samuels. The Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions. 6 Corp L Rev 144, Spring 1983.
von Spakovsky; von Spakovsky; Graffeo. The Limited Patenting of Computer Programs: A Proposed Statutory Approach. 16 Cum L Rev 27, 1985-1986.
Computer Programs and Proposed Revisions of the Patent and Copyright Laws. 81 Harv L Rev 1541, 1968.
Nimtz. Development of the Law of Computer Software Protection. 61 J Pat Off Soc 3, January 1979.
Patent Law--Computer Programs for Processing Data With a Digital Computer Cannot Be Patented Under Present United States Laws. 4 Loyola U L J 560, Summer 1973.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 1, Eligible Subject Matter §§ 1.02, 1.03.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 2, Originality § 2.02.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 3, Novelty §§ 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.08.
1 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 4, Utility §§ 4.01, 4.02, 4.04.
2 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 5, Non-obviousness §§ 5.03, 5.04.
2 Chisum on Patents (Matthew Bender), ch 6, Statutory Bars §§ 6.02, 6.04.
Casey. Means plus function claims after Markman [Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996)]: is claim construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, P 6 a question of fact or an issue of law? 79 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc'y 841, December 1997.
Block. Adequate Disclosure of Computers and Programs for Computers in Patent Specifications. 56 J POS 574, Spring 1974.
Galbi. The Unpatentability of Computer Programs. 1967 Patent L Ann 147.
Nimtz. The Patentability of Computer Programs. 1970 Rutgers J of Computers & the L 38.
VII. Brief Summation
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.