http://patents.soup.io/ http://patents.soup.io/ http://9.asset.soup.io/asset/0403/3545_44d7.png 128 128 {"tags":[],"type":"regular","title":"A Word of Advice on Andrew Tridgell's Patent Defence","source":null,"body":"\u003Cdiv\u003EYou might already have seen this:\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents\"\u003Ehttp://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents\u003C/a\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWell, take it with large chunks of salt, not just a grain or two.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ELike many, I admire Andrew Tridgell's work, most importantly\u00a0his achievements on Samba. His presentation nicely illustrates\u00a0some of the fallacies when programmers, lawyers and patent\u00a0attorneys try to communicate.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThat being said, this text also contains such fundamental\u00a0errors to make it not only misleading but dangerous to Free\u00a0Software.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ELet me quickly recapitulate Andrew's main message to Free Software developers here:\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E0. Read patents\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E1. You don't have to care about dependent claims\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E2. If you're not using ALL elements of an independent claim you can't be infringing the claim in question.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E3. Therefore, you're on the safe side. If we manage to do\u00a0check claim elements on a larger \"open source\" scale, Free\u00a0Software will live happily ever after and software patents\u00a0won't be a big problem anymore.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow I'm aware that Andrew is from Australia and that's how\u00a0things might work there - I simply don't know.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EHowever, regarding those countries where software patents are\u00a0currently the the biggest danger, i.e. the U.S.A., the\u00a0European Union and Japan, Andrew's assumptions are plain\u00a0*wrong*.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFor starters, please check out the Wikipedia entry on the\u00a0doctrine of equivalents:\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents\"\u003Ehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents\u003C/a\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ELike the U.S. Supreme Court said in GRAVER MFG. CO. v. LINDE CO., 339 U.S. 605 (1950):\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\"One who seeks to pirate an invention, like one who seeks to pirate a copyrighted book or play, may be expected to introduce minor variations to conceal and shelter the piracy. Outright and forthright duplication is a dull and very rare type of infringement. To prohibit no other would place the inventor at the mercy of verbalism and would be subordinating substance to form. It would deprive him of the benefit of his invention and would foster concealment rather than disclosure of inventions, which is one of the primary purposes of the patent system.\"\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWhat this all boils down to is that you indeed have to read\u00a0(and understand) all claims, consider what the patented\u00a0invention does as a whole and evaluate if your solution\u00a0achieves the same.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIf it does, you are very likely infringing even if your\u00a0solution does not use all claim elements. That's one of the\u00a0main reasons why software patents are so dangerous and\u00a0happily coexisting with them is a much more complex issue than\u00a0Andrew's talk suggests.\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/div\u003E"} <div>You might already have seen this:</div><div><a href="http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents">http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Well, take it with large chunks of salt, not just a grain or two.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like many, I admire Andrew Tridgell's work, most importantly his achievements on Samba. His presentation nicely illustrates some of the fallacies when programmers, lawyers and patent attorneys try to communicate.</div><div><br /></div><div>That being said, this text also contains such fundamental errors to make it not only misleading but dangerous to Free Software.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let me quickly recapitulate Andrew's main message to Free Software developers here:</div><div><br /></div><div>0. Read patents</div><div>1. You don't have to care about dependent claims</div><div>2. If you're not using ALL elements of an independent claim you can't be infringing the claim in question.</div><div>3. Therefore, you're on the safe side. If we manage to do check claim elements on a larger "open source" scale, Free Software will live happily ever after and software patents won't be a big problem anymore.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now I'm aware that Andrew is from Australia and that's how things might work there - I simply don't know.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, regarding those countries where software patents are currently the the biggest danger, i.e. the U.S.A., the European Union and Japan, Andrew's assumptions are plain *wrong*.</div><div><br /></div><div>For starters, please check out the Wikipedia entry on the doctrine of equivalents:</div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Like the U.S. Supreme Court said in GRAVER MFG. CO. v. LINDE CO., 339 U.S. 605 (1950):</div><div><br /></div><div>"One who seeks to pirate an invention, like one who seeks to pirate a copyrighted book or play, may be expected to introduce minor variations to conceal and shelter the piracy. Outright and forthright duplication is a dull and very rare type of infringement. To prohibit no other would place the inventor at the mercy of verbalism and would be subordinating substance to form. It would deprive him of the benefit of his invention and would foster concealment rather than disclosure of inventions, which is one of the primary purposes of the patent system."</div><div><br /></div><div>What this all boils down to is that you indeed have to read (and understand) all claims, consider what the patented invention does as a whole and evaluate if your solution achieves the same.</div><div><br /></div><div>If it does, you are very likely infringing even if your solution does not use all claim elements. That's one of the main reasons why software patents are so dangerous and happily coexisting with them is a much more complex issue than Andrew's talk suggests.</div><div><br /></div><p>[Reposted from <span class="user_container user162799" ><a class="" href="http://gjakob.soup.io/post/50412291/A-Word-of-Advice-on-Andrew-Tridgells"><span class="name">gjakob</span></a></span>]</p>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:43:59 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/50412502/A-Word-of-Advice-on-Andrew-Tridgellsurn:www-soup-io:1:50412502regular {"tags":[],"type":"regular","title":"Reminder: Treffen der FFII Regionalgruppe M\u00fcnchen","source":null,"body":"\u003Cp class=\"line874\"\u003EMitglieder und Unterst\u00fctzer des \u003Ca href=\"https://ffii.de/wiki/RegionalgruppeMuenchen\"\u003EFFII im Raum M\u00fcnchen\u003C/a\u003E treffen sich in immer am ersten Dienstag im Monat zur Diskussion und Planung von Aktionen.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"line862\"\u003EDas n\u00e4chste Treffen findet daher am\u00a0\u003Cstrong\u003E2. Februar 2010 ab 20h\u00a0\u003Ca href=\"http://www.ganz-muenchen.de/gastro/restaurants/italienisch/vapiano_im_zob/info.html\" class=\"http\"\u003Eim Va Piano an der Hackerbr\u00fccke\u003C/a\u003E\u003C/strong\u003E\u00a0statt.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"line874\"\u003EAlle Interessierten sind wie immer sehr herzlich eingeladen!\u003C/p\u003E"} <p class="line874">Mitglieder und Unterstützer des <a href="https://ffii.de/wiki/RegionalgruppeMuenchen">FFII im Raum München</a> treffen sich in immer am ersten Dienstag im Monat zur Diskussion und Planung von Aktionen.</p><p class="line862">Das nächste Treffen findet daher am <strong>2. Februar 2010 ab 20h <a href="http://www.ganz-muenchen.de/gastro/restaurants/italienisch/vapiano_im_zob/info.html" class="http">im Va Piano an der Hackerbrücke</a></strong> statt.</p><p class="line874">Alle Interessierten sind wie immer sehr herzlich eingeladen!</p><p>[Reposted from <span class="user_container user163024" ><a class="" href="http://ffii.soup.io/post/43942434/Reminder-Treffen-der-FFII-Regionalgruppe-M-nchen"><span class="name">ffii</span></a></span>]</p>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:05:50 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/43942509/Reminder-Treffen-der-FFII-Regionalgruppe-M-nchenurn:www-soup-io:1:43942509regular {"tags":[],"type":"regular","title":"Another (weak) Defense of Software Patents (and its rebuttal)","source":null,"body":"\u003Cp\u003EHave a look at \u003Ca href=\"http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/in-defense-of-software-patents-1.html#_ftn2\"\u003Ethis article\u003C/a\u003E.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EDepending on your taste, you might find that it contains some nice rhetoric. But right from the start, it gets the most\u00a0basic facts wrong, e.g:\u00a0\"Although the Supreme Court has previously stated that software is\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003Epatentable subject matter\"\u003C/i\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\u003C/i\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003ENo, that's not what the Supreme Court said. What the Supreme Court actually did say was that processes are patentable and that only because Software\u00a0is involved in a solution this doesn't necessarily exclude it from\u00a0patentability in all cases. But, whenever an algorithm is involved in\u00a0such a solution it has to be treated as \u003Ci\u003Eprior art\u003C/i\u003E, i.e. it cannot be\u00a0claimed (let alone patented) alone.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003ESee the \u003Ca href=\"http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf\"\u003EAmicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice\u003C/a\u003E in the Bilski\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Ecase, especially p. 23 ff for further details.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EGoetz then presses for software patents by arguing that hardware and\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Esoftware are equivalent. Very nice, so he has heard about the \u003Ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church\u2013Turing_thesis\"\u003EChurch-Turing\u00a0thesis\u003C/a\u003E, too.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EWhat he doesn't mention though is one of the most important and basic\u00a0differences between hardware and software: For Hardware you need to buy\u00a0parts, you need to carefully plan and build something, and if you do\u00a0anything wrong, things will break and you'll have to buy new parts, and\u00a0build the thing again. Only 2% of the population are engineers and patent\u00a0law is supposed to be limited to them.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003ESoftware on the other hand can be written by anyone and reusing,\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Ecombining and refining it continuously is one of it's most basic properties.\u00a0Ever tried to bolt a plane and a ship together? And would you expect the\u00a0result to fly and swim? Or to be just an embarrassing bulk of stuff that'll\u00a0likely explode right in your face?\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EWell, with software, you do it every day. Bolt together a web server and\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Ea database, and here you have your information management system. Bolt\u00a0together a file browser and an image viewer, bingo, that's your digital\u00a0photo library. And so on.\u00a0\u003Ci\u003EThat's\u003C/i\u003E the difference between hardware and\u00a0software: Hardware is built by engineers, software is written. Therefore, patents\u00a0for hardware, copyright for software.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003ESee the\u00a0\u003Ca href=\"http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf\"\u003EAmicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice\u003C/a\u003E\u00a0in the Bilski\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ecase, especially p. 9 ff for further details.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EStill, Goetz insists that Software should be patented because \"software\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Eproduct companies are high technology manufacturing entities\", \"more\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Esimilar to engineers than writers\". He just states that without really\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Eelaborating it and supposes we should take it at face value - after all\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Ehe's the guy who's proud of having gotten the first software patent in\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Ethe history of the U.S. so he can't be biased, can he?\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EBut let's just think about this for a moment. How is software created in such companies? And how is a blockbuster in Hollywood created? All that CGI... digitaly\u00a0filmed, edited, distributed and projected. A movie is a product to. And where's the newspaper that hasn't got\u00a0a website, these days? Should plotlines for films be patented too, just because\u00a0Hollywood is an Industry? Should news items be \"protected\" by patents?\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EAnd so here's what he concludes:\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E\"\u003Ci\u003EIt is obvious that software products are not \u201csoftware ideas\u201d[...]\u003C/i\u003E\"\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EWell, that's just irrelevant and distracting. But what actually is relevant is that any Software consist\u00a0of algorithms (and only algorithms).\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EAnd further:\u003C/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003E\"\u003Ci\u003EI believe the Courts should view software as a component of a general\u003C/i\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003Epurpose computer (a machine) and that software transforms a general\u003C/i\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003Epurpose computer into a special purpose computer (or machine).\u003C/i\u003E\"\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EThat belief is wrong. Although one might feel tempted to agree to the first half of it to some limited extent at least, the second part is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption and its conclusions are borderline absurd. Depending on your definition of \"part\", Software (i.e. Algorithms) might indeed be seen as a part of a general purpose computer.\n\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EBut it definitely is\u00a0not a part which \"transforms a general purpose computer into a special\u00a0purpose computer\": Only\u00a0because you install a word processor on your Laptop it doesn't become\u00a0non-general all of a sudden - you still can use it to surf the internet,\u00a0sent mail, listen to music, watch videos and do an infinite amount of other\u00a0general purpose stuff. Just like a film projector isn't becoming a \"special device for displaying a story involving a guy dressing up as flying rodent\" only because the theater owner choose to show the Batman movie tonight.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EAnd that's exactly why the Supreme Court stated already that an algorithm\u00a0has to be treated as prior art in patent law. It's just that his view has been distorted\u00a0by the USPTO and lower courts ever since the \u003Ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group\"\u003EState Street case\u003C/a\u003E.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EAgain, see the\u00a0\u003Ca href=\"http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf\"\u003EAmicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice\u003C/a\u003E\u00a0in the Bilski\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Ecase, especially p. 23 ff for further details.\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003ENo, the Bilski case is not about the Supreme Court reversing what he said in the\u00a0past - it is about reaffirming it and putting the lower courts back\u003C/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003Eon track, thereby plainly and simply ensuring law and order in patent law again.\u003C/p\u003E"} <p>Have a look at <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/in-defense-of-software-patents-1.html#_ftn2">this article</a>.</p> <br /> <p>Depending on your taste, you might find that it contains some nice rhetoric. But right from the start, it gets the most basic facts wrong, e.g: "Although the Supreme Court has previously stated that software is</p> <p><i>patentable subject matter"</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p> <br /> <p>No, that's not what the Supreme Court said. What the Supreme Court actually did say was that processes are patentable and that only because Software is involved in a solution this doesn't necessarily exclude it from patentability in all cases. But, whenever an algorithm is involved in such a solution it has to be treated as <i>prior art</i>, i.e. it cannot be claimed (let alone patented) alone.</p> <br /> <p>See the <a href="http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf">Amicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice</a> in the Bilski</p> <p>case, especially p. 23 ff for further details.</p> <br /> <p>Goetz then presses for software patents by arguing that hardware and</p> <p>software are equivalent. Very nice, so he has heard about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis">Church-Turing thesis</a>, too.</p> <br /> <p>What he doesn't mention though is one of the most important and basic differences between hardware and software: For Hardware you need to buy parts, you need to carefully plan and build something, and if you do anything wrong, things will break and you'll have to buy new parts, and build the thing again. Only 2% of the population are engineers and patent law is supposed to be limited to them.</p> <br /> <p>Software on the other hand can be written by anyone and reusing,</p> <p>combining and refining it continuously is one of it's most basic properties. Ever tried to bolt a plane and a ship together? And would you expect the result to fly and swim? Or to be just an embarrassing bulk of stuff that'll likely explode right in your face?</p> <br /> <p>Well, with software, you do it every day. Bolt together a web server and</p> <p>a database, and here you have your information management system. Bolt together a file browser and an image viewer, bingo, that's your digital photo library. And so on. <i>That's</i> the difference between hardware and software: Hardware is built by engineers, software is written. Therefore, patents for hardware, copyright for software.</p> <br /> <p>See the <a href="http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf">Amicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice</a> in the Bilski</p><p>case, especially p. 9 ff for further details.</p> <br /> <p>Still, Goetz insists that Software should be patented because "software</p> <p>product companies are high technology manufacturing entities", "more</p> <p>similar to engineers than writers". He just states that without really</p> <p>elaborating it and supposes we should take it at face value - after all</p> <p>he's the guy who's proud of having gotten the first software patent in</p> <p>the history of the U.S. so he can't be biased, can he?</p> <br /> <p>But let's just think about this for a moment. How is software created in such companies? And how is a blockbuster in Hollywood created? All that CGI... digitaly filmed, edited, distributed and projected. A movie is a product to. And where's the newspaper that hasn't got a website, these days? Should plotlines for films be patented too, just because Hollywood is an Industry? Should news items be "protected" by patents?</p> <br /> <p>And so here's what he concludes:</p> <p>"<i>It is obvious that software products are not “software ideas”[...]</i>"</p> <br /> <p>Well, that's just irrelevant and distracting. But what actually is relevant is that any Software consist of algorithms (and only algorithms).</p> <br /> <p>And further:</p> <p>"<i>I believe the Courts should view software as a component of a general</i></p> <p><i>purpose computer (a machine) and that software transforms a general</i></p> <p><i>purpose computer into a special purpose computer (or machine).</i>"</p> <br /> <p>That belief is wrong. Although one might feel tempted to agree to the first half of it to some limited extent at least, the second part is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption and its conclusions are borderline absurd. Depending on your definition of "part", Software (i.e. Algorithms) might indeed be seen as a part of a general purpose computer. </p> <br /> <p>But it definitely is not a part which "transforms a general purpose computer into a special purpose computer": Only because you install a word processor on your Laptop it doesn't become non-general all of a sudden - you still can use it to surf the internet, sent mail, listen to music, watch videos and do an infinite amount of other general purpose stuff. Just like a film projector isn't becoming a "special device for displaying a story involving a guy dressing up as flying rodent" only because the theater owner choose to show the Batman movie tonight.</p> <br /> <p>And that's exactly why the Supreme Court stated already that an algorithm has to be treated as prior art in patent law. It's just that his view has been distorted by the USPTO and lower courts ever since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group">State Street case</a>.</p> <br /> <p>Again, see the <a href="http://media.ffii.org/BilskiFFII/ACB_FFII.pdf">Amicus Curiae Brief by FFII an IP Justice</a> in the Bilski</p><p>case, especially p. 23 ff for further details.</p> <br /> <p>No, the Bilski case is not about the Supreme Court reversing what he said in the past - it is about reaffirming it and putting the lower courts back</p> <p>on track, thereby plainly and simply ensuring law and order in patent law again.</p><p>[Reposted from <span class="user_container user162799" ><a class="" href="http://gjakob.soup.io/post/36439269/Another-weak-Defense-of-Software-Patents-and"><span class="name">gjakob</span></a></span> via <span class="user_container user163024" ><a class="" href="http://ffii.soup.io/post/36444867/Another-weak-Defense-of-Software-Patents-and"><span class="name">ffii</span></a></span>]</p>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:20:10 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/36456183/Another-weak-Defense-of-Software-Patents-andurn:www-soup-io:1:36456183regular {"tags":[],"type":"link","title":"Pr\u00fcfstein Bundestagswahl 2009","source":"http://www.keinpatent.de/index.php?id=128","body":"If you're interested in patents on life, these are the questions you want answers for by the candidates for the election in Germany. More info on\u00a0http://www.keinpatent.de"} <p>If you're interested in patents on life, these are the questions you want answers for by the candidates for the election in Germany. More info on <a href="http://www.keinpatent.de">http://www.keinpatent.de</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.keinpatent.de/index.php?id=128">http://www.keinpatent.de/index.php?id=128</a></p>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:38:44 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/24065147/Pr-fstein-Bundestagswahl-2009urn:www-soup-io:1:24065147link {"tags":[],"type":"file","info":"(PDF, 131.1 KB)","title":"Wahlpruefstein_Patente_1","file_url":"","body":"Here's the pdf.","url":"http://c.asset.soup.io/asset/0406/7820_f6c7.pdf"} Here's the pdf. Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:36:35 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/24064985/Wahlpruefstein-Patente-1-PDF-131-1-KBurn:www-soup-io:1:24064985file {"tags":[],"type":"link","title":"Reprogrammed Skin Cells Turned Into Baby Mice","source":"http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/26/2157219/Reprogrammed-Skin-Cells-Turned-Into-Baby-Mice?art_pos=16","body":"Ever asked yourself what patents on software and patents on life might have in common? Well, bioprogramming is one answer and this story describes one application of what it does: Programming skin sells to become mice.\u00a0O brave new world..."} <p>Ever asked yourself what patents on software and patents on life might have in common? Well, bioprogramming is one answer and this story describes one application of what it does: Programming skin sells to become mice. O brave new world...</p> <p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/26/2157219/Reprogrammed-Skin-Cells-Turned-Into-Baby-Mice?art_pos=16">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/26/2157219/Reprogrammed-Skin-Cells-Turned-Into-Baby-Mice?art_pos=16</a></p>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:07:58 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/24053923/Reprogrammed-Skin-Cells-Turned-Into-Baby-Miceurn:www-soup-io:1:24053923link {"tags":[],"type":"file","info":null,"title":"Report_Saatgut_und_Lebensmittel.pdf","file_url":"http://www.keinpatent.de/uploads/media/Report_Saatgut_und_Lebensmittel.pdf","body":"Report (in german) on the patenting of conventionally (i.e. no genetic engineering) \u00a0bred seed and food\u00a0\u003Cdiv\u003Eby Ruth Tippe and Christoph Then for the international coalition\u00a0\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/\"\u003ENo Patents on Seeds\u003C/a\u003E.\u003C/div\u003E","url":null} Report (in german) on the patenting of conventionally (i.e. no genetic engineering)  bred seed and food by Ruth Tippe and Christoph Then for the international coalition No Patents on Seeds. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:54:28 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/23885262/Report-Saatgut-und-Lebensmittel-pdfurn:www-soup-io:1:23885262file {"tags":[],"type":"file","info":null,"title":"Report_Nutz-Tier-Patente.pdf","file_url":"http://www.keinpatent.de/uploads/media/Report_Nutz-Tier-Patente.pdf","body":"Report (in german) on the patenting of conventionally (i.e. no genetic engineering) \u00a0bred animals \u003Cdiv\u003Eby Ruth Tippe and Christoph Then\u003C/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E(\u003Ca href=\"http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/\"\u003ENo Patents on Seeds\u003C/a\u003E)\u00a0for\u00a0\u003Ca href=\"http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/patente/nachrichten/artikel/demo_gegen_patente_auf_kuehe_und_tomaten/\"\u003EGreenpeace\u003C/a\u003E.\u003C/div\u003E","url":null} Report (in german) on the patenting of conventionally (i.e. no genetic engineering)  bred animals by Ruth Tippe and Christoph Then(No Patents on Seeds) for Greenpeace. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:51:57 GMThttp://patents.soup.io/post/23885151/Report-Nutz-Tier-Patente-pdfurn:www-soup-io:1:23885151file