DOCSLIB.ORG

Patents, Standardization, and the Internet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patents, Standardization, and the Internet Denver Law Review Volume 93 Issue 4 Symposium - Future World IP: Legal Article 4 Response to the Tech Revolution December 2020 A Tale of Two Layers: Patents, Standardization, and the Internet Jorge L. Contreras Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Jorge L. Contreras, A Tale of Two Layers: Patents, Standardization, and the Internet, 93 Denv. L. Rev. 855 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. A TALE OF Two LAYERS: PATENTS, STANDARDIZATION, AND THE INTERNET JORGE L. CONTRERASt ABSTRACT In recent years, high-profile lawsuits involving standards-essential patents (SEPs) have made headlines in the United States, Europe, and Asia, leading to a heated public debate regarding the role and impact of patents covering key interoperability standards. Enforcement agencies around the world have investigated and prosecuted alleged violations of competition law and private licensing commitments in connection with SEPs. Yet, while the debate has focused broadly on standardization and patents in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, commentators have paid little attention to differences among technology layers within ICT. This Article uses both existing and new empirical data to show that patent filing and assertion activity is substantially lower for Internet- related standards than for standards relating to telecommunications and other computing technologies. It analyzes historical and social factors that may have contributed to this divergence focusing on the two princi- pal Internet standards bodies: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It counters the dominant narrative that standards and SEPs are necessarily fraught with litigation and thereby necessitate radical systemic change. Instead, it shows that standards policies that de-emphasize patent monetization have led to lower levels of disputes and litigation. It concludes by placing re- cent discussions of patenting and standards within the broader context of openness in network technologies and urges both industry participants and policy makers to look to the success of Internet standardization in a patent-light environment when considering the adoption of new rules and policies. t Associate Professor, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law and Senior Policy Fellow, American University Washington College of Law. The author thanks Scott Bradner and Wendy Seltzer for their helpful background discussions of IETF and W3C, respectively. The author serves as a legal advisor to IETF, but received no compensation from IETF relating to the prepara- tion of this Article. Support for the preparation of this Article was provided by the Centre for Inter- national Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). An earlier version of this Article appeared as Jorge L. Contreras, Patents and Internet Standards (Glob. Comm'n on Internet Governance, Paper Series No. 29, Apr. 2016), https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig no29_web.pdf. 855 856 DENVER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 93.4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 856 A. Standards andInteroperability .................. ..... 856 B. The Architecture ofInternet Standardization....... ...... 857 II. PATENTS AND STANDARDS ............................... 859 A. Standards-EssentialPatents......................... 859 B. Patent Concerns: The Debate over Hold- Up and Stacking........ 860 C. SDO PatentPolicies ......................... ..... 861 III. SEP DISPUTES: IS THE INTERNET DIFFERENT? ...................... 863 A. Patent Acquisition and Standards ................ ..... 863 B. SEP Litigation Today ..................... ........ 864 C. Litigation Involving Internet Standards ........... ...... 866 IV. WHAT THE INTERNET IS NOT (YET) .................. ..... 867 V. THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE (IETF) ....... ..... 869 A. The Origins and Growth oflETF.. ................... 869 B. Patents at IETF ................................. 871 1. Evolution of the IETF Patent Policy ..................... 871 2. IETF's Preference for RF.. ......................... 873 a. RF Policy Preferences .............................. 873 b. Working Group Deliberations ......... ............ 874 c. Voluntary Licensing Disclosures ......... .......... 875 IV. THE WORLDWIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C).... ............ 876 A. The Origins of W3C .............................. 876 B. Patents and W3C................................ 877 1. The Increasing Relevance of Patents to the Web................... 877 2. W3C's Royalty-Free Patent Policy ............. ........... 878 VII. CONCLUSION: THE LOGIC OF ROYALTY-FREE ....... ......... 881 APPENDIX 1................................. ......... 884 We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. Dave Clark, 19921 I. INTRODUCTION A. Standards andInteroperability Technical interoperability standards are sets of protocols and design parameters that enable products manufactured by different vendors to work together with minimal user intervention. These standards are em- bodied in nearly every electronic and technological device today. Broad- ly adopted interoperability standards can produce significant efficiency- ]. Dave Clark, Senior Research Scientist, Mass. Inst. Tech, A Cloudy Crystal Ball - Visions of the Future, Presentation at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Internet Engineering Task Force (July 16, 1992), in PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 543, slide 19 (Megan Davies et al. eds., 1992), https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/24.pdf. 2016] PATENTS, STANDARDIZATION, AND THE INTERNET 857 enhancing network effects and other benefits and are integral to the mod- em technology infrastructure. 2 Standards may be developed in a variety of settings. Some health, safety, and environmental standards are developed by governmental agencies. Most interoperability standards, however, are developed in the private sector. Individual firms may develop proprietary technologies that, through broad market adoption, become de facto standards (e.g., Adobe's "portable document format" (PDF)). In several well-known cases competing firms have engaged in commercial "standards wars" to determine which of their proprietary formats will prevail in the market. Over the past two decades, however, most interoperability standards have been developed by groups of market participants that collaborate within voluntary associations known as standards-development organiza- tions (SDOs).4 The standards produced within these organizations are often referred to as "voluntary consensus standards," as they are devel- oped through consensus-based collaborative processes, and there is no requirement that participants use the resulting standards. B. The Architecture ofInternet Standardization Gartner Group estimates that more than six billion devices are con- nected to the Internet in 2016.' The interconnection and communication of these devices is made possible by hundreds of different standards at many different technological layers. The TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Intemet Protocol) data model provides an abstract representa- tion of the four functional layers of a computing or communications sys- tem and is frequently utilized to conceptualize the different technology layers that comprise the Internet.6 In Table 1 below, the four TCP/IP layers are shown with a set of exemplary standards as well as the SDOs responsible for these standards. 2. See CARL SHAPIRO & HAL R. VARIAN, INFORMATION RULES: A STRATEGIC GUIDE TO THE NETWORK ECONOMY 186 (1999); see also Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991, 2025-29 (2007). 3. SHAPIRO & VARIAN, supra note 2, at 17 (describing well-known standards wars such as Betamax v. VHS). 4. The alternative term "standards-setting organization" (SSO) is also used in the literature. 5. Press Release, Gartner, Gartner Says 6.4 Billion Connected "Things" Will Be in Use in 2016, up 30 Percent from 2015 (Nov. 10, 2015), http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3165317. 6. See, e.g., ANDREW G. BLANK, TCP/IP FOUNDATIONS 24 (2004). 7. Id. Table 3, of course, grossly oversimplifies the vast array of standards and SDOs in- volved in Internet technologies. In addition to the listed SDOs, at every layer there are numerous smaller consortia and industry collaborations that may compete or cooperate with the listed SDOs. 858 DENVER LAWREVIEW [Vol. 93.4 TABLE 1 INTERNET STANDARDIZATION "STACK" Layer Standards SDOs 4. Application XML (data exchange) W3C, OASIS HTTP, HTML (web) IETF, W3C IMAP, POP, MIME IETF (email) 3. Transport TCP, UDP IETF 2. Internet IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, IETF ARP 1. Network Ethernet, ISDN, DSL, IEEE Wi-Fi, X.25 ETSI 3G/4G As Table 1 illustrates, there are three distinct groups of SDOs in- volved in Internet standardization at different levels of the network archi- tecture.8 The first group focuses on Layer 1, which corresponds to physi- cal transmission and data link technologies. 9 These include standards for both wired connections (e.g., Ethernet, DSL, and ISDN) as well as wire- less connections (2G/3G/4G). 0 The major SDOs that serve these tech- nical areas are ETSI and IEEE, though
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On
    OPINION The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On By Heather J. Meeker LinuxInsider 02/23/05 5:00 AM PT Once upon a time, we intellectual property lawyers got to live peacefully in our ivory towers. Now it seems that intellectual property policy issues have become fraught with partisan rhetoric. Most open-source promoters are against software patents. Most corporate spokesmen side with patents, period, whether they cover software or not. But it is worth looking beyond the rhetoric. The European Commission recently tolled the death knell for the EU Software Patent Directive, or more precisely, the "Directive on the Patentability of Computer- Implemented Inventions." Like most Americans, I am fairly clueless about the EU political process, and I wouldn't presume to write about exactly how it was killed. But the decision may have been swayed by an eleventh-hour public relations pitch against the directive by open-source spokesmen from the United States. On that aspect, I will add my two cents. A delegation of open-source leaders, led by Linus Torvalds, published an "Appeal" at softwarepatents.com, calling software patents "dangerous to the economy at large, and particularly to the European economy." Look Beyond the Rhetoric Leaders of the open-source software movement have long been harsh critics of software patents. The GPL [license] itself says, "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents." The appeal contends that copyright provides adequate protection for the creations of software authors. The Appeal advocated reliance on copyright law, rather than patent law, for the protection of software. Not long afterward, in late January, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee recommended scrapping the pending directive, extending the debate until at least the end From www.linuxinsider.com/story/40676.html 1 April 2011 of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court Eastern
    Case 2:02-cv-02748-DRH-MLO Document 829 Filed 03/17/09 Page 1 of 85 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X CA, INC., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 02 Civ. 2748 (DRH) (MLO) - against - UNDER SEAL SIMPLE.COM, INC., WIRED SOLUTIONS, LLC., a revoked Nevada LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X APPEARANCES: COVINGTON & BURLING Attorneys for Plaintiff One Front Street San Francisco, California 94111 By: Samuel F. Ernst, Esq., Robert D. Fram, Esq., Michael M. Markman, Esq., & Leonard Joseph Martiniak, Esq. FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants EAB Plaza West Tower-14th Floor Uniondale, New York 11556 By: Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., Esq., John P. McEntee, Esq., & Celeste M. Butera, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP Attorneys for Defendants 666 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10103-3198 By: John E. Lynch, Esq. & Joseph P. Zammit, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP Attorneys for Defendants EAB Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556 By: Celeste M. Butera, Esq. & Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., Esq. 1 Case 2:02-cv-02748-DRH-MLO Document 829 Filed 03/17/09 Page 2 of 85 PageID #: <pageID> GALE R. PETERSON, ESQ. Special Master 112 E. Pecan Street Suite 1800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 HURLEY, Senior District Judge: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff CA Inc. (“CA), formerly known as Computer Associates International Inc. commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that three patents owned by Defendants, Simple.com, Inc. and Wired Solutions, LLC (collectively “Simple”) are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by CA. Simple has counterclaimed for infringement. Presently before the Court is CA’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Duty to Disclose: Dayco Products V Total Containment
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DUTY TO DISCLOSE: DAYCO PRODUCTS V TOTAL CONTAINMENT TOM BRODY ABSTRACT The duty to disclose, as set forth by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and case law from the Federal Circuit, should be followed during the prosecution of all patent applications. This duty requires that inventors and their attorneys provide the United States Patent and Trademark Office with a list identifying relevant publications, patent applications, patents, legal proceedings, written rejections from patent examiners, and sales, both public and confidential. "Relevant" means relevant to the claims. The consequences of failing in this duty can be severe, namely, a holding of inequitable conduct. Inequitable conduct, in the patenting context, requires two prongs-materiality of the publication and intent to deceive the Patent Office. Patent practitioners are confronted by many gray areas, e.g., the boundaries of the duty, whether disclosing an Abstract can satisfy the duty of disclosing the corresponding full length publication, how to remedy situations where an inventor failed to timely disclose the publication, and how to assess deceptive intent. Copyright © 2008 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Tom Brody, Duty to Disclose: Dayco Products v. Total Containment, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 325 (2008). DUTY TO DISCLOSE: DAYCO PRODUCTS V. TOTAL CONTAINMENT TOM BRODY* "We leave for another day a final disposition of this issue"' INTRODUCTION The duty to disclose information to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") is a major issue for the patent practitioner. Failure to disclose can have severe consequences, for example, invalidation of your patent and all related patents in the patent family.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Symposium for John Perry Barlow
    DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Volume 18, Special Symposium Issue August 2019 Special Editor: James Boyle THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow Duke University School of Law Duke Law and Technology Review Fall 2019–Spring 2020 Editor-in-Chief YOOJEONG JAYE HAN Managing Editor ROBERT HARTSMITH Chief Executive Editors MICHELLE JACKSON ELENA ‘ELLIE’ SCIALABBA Senior Research Editors JENNA MAZZELLA DALTON POWELL Special Projects Editor JOSEPH CAPUTO Technical Editor JEROME HUGHES Content Editors JOHN BALLETTA ROSHAN PATEL JACOB TAKA WALL ANN DU JASON WASSERMAN Staff Editors ARKADIY ‘DAVID’ ALOYTS ANDREW LINDSAY MOHAMED SATTI JONATHAN B. BASS LINDSAY MARTIN ANTHONY SEVERIN KEVIN CERGOL CHARLES MATULA LUCA TOMASI MICHAEL CHEN DANIEL MUNOZ EMILY TRIBULSKI YUNA CHOI TREVOR NICHOLS CHARLIE TRUSLOW TIM DILL ANDRES PACIUC JOHN W. TURANCHIK PERRY FELDMAN GERARDO PARRAGA MADELEINE WAMSLEY DENISE GO NEHAL PATEL SIQI WANG ZACHARY GRIFFIN MARQUIS J. PULLEN TITUS R. WILLIS CHARLES ‘CHASE’ HAMILTON ANDREA RODRIGUEZ BOUTROS ZIXUAN XIAO DAVID KIM ZAYNAB SALEM CARRIE YANG MAX KING SHAREEF M. SALFITY TOM YU SAMUEL LEWIS TIANYE ZHANG Journals Advisor Faculty Advisor Journals Coordinator JENNIFER BEHRENS JAMES BOYLE KRISTI KUMPOST TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors’ Biographies ................................................................................ i. John Perry Barlow Photograph ............................................................... vi. The Past and Future of the Internet: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow James Boyle
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis Innovation Dynamics in Open Source Software
    Master thesis Innovation dynamics in open source software Author: Name: Remco Bloemen Student number: 0109150 Email: [email protected] Telephone: +316 11 88 66 71 Supervisors and advisors: Name: prof. dr. Stefan Kuhlmann Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3353 Office: Ravelijn RA 4410 (STEPS) Name: dr. Chintan Amrit Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 4064 Office: Ravelijn RA 3410 (IEBIS) Name: dr. Gonzalo Ord´o~nez{Matamoros Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3348 Office: Ravelijn RA 4333 (STEPS) 1 Abstract Open source software development is a major driver of software innovation, yet it has thus far received little attention from innovation research. One of the reasons is that conventional methods such as survey based studies or patent co-citation analysis do not work in the open source communities. In this thesis it will be shown that open source development is very accessible to study, due to its open nature, but it requires special tools. In particular, this thesis introduces the method of dependency graph analysis to study open source software devel- opment on the grandest scale. A proof of concept application of this method is done and has delivered many significant and interesting results. Contents 1 Open source software 6 1.1 The open source licenses . 8 1.2 Commercial involvement in open source . 9 1.3 Opens source development . 10 1.4 The intellectual property debates . 12 1.4.1 The software patent debate . 13 1.4.2 The open source blind spot . 15 1.5 Litterature search on network analysis in software development .
    [Show full text]
  • Future of Web Technologies
    The HTML5 & CSS3 Landscape Chris Mills, Opera Software, all the way from “sunny” Manchester, UK Slides available At my.opera.com/ODIN (search for “chrismills” tag) I work for Opera Open web standards evangelist Technologist Tech writer and GENERAL DOGSBODY What we'll cover HTML5 history HTML5 purpose HTML5 things we can use today CSS3 purpose CSS3 things we can use today HTML5 history HTML5 history HTML5 purpose HTML5 things we can use today CSS3 purpose CSS3 things we can use today A brief history of HTML HTML first proposed 1989-91 HTML2 first standardised in 1995 HTML 4.01 standardised in 1999 Corrections submitted 2001 blah blah blah... HTML5 history HTML5 started 2004 by WHAT- WG Adopted by W3C 2008 Still being argued about Still being developed by both! What does this tell us?? What wisdom can we glean from this? History is boring! This technology has been around for a long time! HTML5 purpose HTML5 history HTML5 purpose HTML5 things we can use today CSS3 purpose CSS3 things we can use today Evolving... There is nothing wrong with HTML 4 ...Evolved! But HTML5 is much more feature-rich! HTML5 doesn't replace HTML4 It fills up holes Adds new markup + APIs Adds more semantics Competes with proprietary tech Isn't backwards incompatible Competition in mind Ian Hickson has already said as much. HTML5 will directly compete with other web application technologies, like Flash and Silverlight Competition in mind HTML5 features More accurate semantics (eg <header>, <footer>) Better forms (built in validation!) <video> <canvas> HTML5 features
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs
    Ekonomi och samhälle Economics and Society Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr 246 Rosa Maria Ballardini Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Helsinki 2012 < Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs: Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Key words: computer programs, software, intellectual property law, patents, copyright, open source software © Hanken School of Economics & Rosa Maria Ballardini, 2012 Rosa Maria Ballardini Hanken School of Economics Department of Accounting and Commercial Law P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland ONM VIR EN Hanken School of Economics N TA E L IC L A D B R E O ISBN 978-952-232-173-2 (printed ) L N ISBN 978-952-232-174-9 (PDF) ISSN-L 0424-7256 ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) 441 002 ISSN 2242-699X (PDF) Printed matter Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2012 i PREFACE While growing up in a small, remote village in the Italian Alps, I could not help but dream about exotic destinations and faraway lands. Back then I never imagined myself embarking on a journey that would eventually materialize into a PhD project at a Finnish University. However, the greatest travels are often those without clear destinations or meticulous planning, and as it turns out this has been one of my best voyages. On this journey, I’ve drifted and sailed. Thankfully, I’ve benefited from the guidance and support of many. First and foremost, the vast academic experience and accommodating personalities of my supervisors have been crucial for developing both the research and the independent thinking skills necessary for any doctoral project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Software Patent Debate Andre´S Guadamuz Gonza´Lez*
    Jnl. Intellectual Property Law and Practice Advance Access published January 10, 2006 _____________________ | | | | Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice ARTICLE | 1of11 | The software patent debate Andre´s Guadamuz Gonza´lez* It was never the object of patent laws to grant a mono- poly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade Key issues of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary The recent demise of the proposed Directive on progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate cre- Computer-Implemented Inventions has over- ation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct shadowed its complex background and the than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculat- interplay of conflicting interests that it brought ive schemers who make it their business to watch the into play. advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam Copyright (which already protects all software) in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them and patent law (which protects much software to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of in the United States but relatively little else- the arts. where) both have their strengths and weak- US Supreme Court, Atlantic Works v Brady, 1882 nesses as legal rights. Little evidence has, however, been adduced as to the incentive effect of either of these legal regimes. 1. Introduction The decision to withdraw the proposed Direc- The approval procedure of the proposed Directive tive does not mean that the issues addressed on the Patentability of Computer-implemented in it and the interests affected by it have been Inventions1 (the CII Directive) has sparked a heated resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Tkgecko: a Frill-Necked Lizard Steve Ball Zveno Pty Ltd Eolas Technologies, Inc [email protected]
    Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Tcl/Tk Conference Austin, Texas, USA, February 14–18, 2000 T K G E C K O : A F R I L L - N E C K E D L I Z A R D Steve Ball THE ADVANCED COMPUTING SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION © 2000 by The USENIX Association. All Rights Reserved. For more information about the USENIX Association: Phone: 1 510 528 8649; FAX: 1 510 548 5738; Email: [email protected]; WWW: http://www.usenix.org. Rights to individual papers remain with the author or the author's employer. Permission is granted for noncommercial reproduction of the work for educational or research purposes.This copyright notice must be included in the reproduced paper. USENIX acknowledges all trademarks herein. TkGecko: A Frill-Necked Lizard Steve Ball Zveno Pty Ltd Eolas Technologies, Inc [email protected] Abstract The first major "product" release from Mozilla.org is Gecko, the core HTML/XML page rendering engine The Mozilla Open Source project has made a full- for the browser. Gecko is known more formerly as featured, fast Web browser, Netscape's Navigator, the NewLayout module. This module is written in available in source form to the Internet community. C++ (in fact, all of Mozilla is written in C++, but A major component of the project, and an early re- there does exist a separate project to reimplement leased package, is the NewLayout (a.k.a. Gecko) Mozilla in Java), and is designed to be embeddable HTML/XML rendering engine. One feature of this inside other applications, for example as a HTML- module is that it is designed to be embeddable in any based help viewing system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Day After the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: Who Won the Battle and When Shall the War End? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos *
    Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2007 The day after the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: who won the battle and when shall the war end? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos * Abstract This article follows the debate about the patentability of software after the demise of the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, particularly exploring the misconception that software is not patentable in Europe, and the belief that this places the local software industry at a competitive disadvantage and that it is a less attractive place for investment compared to the US and Japan. The article assesses whether there is indeed a need for a change in law or in practice and if so, to ascertain the path that Europe should follow. DOI: 10.2966/scrip.040207.180 © Konstantinos Fotinopoulos 2007. This work is licensed through SCRIPT-ed Open Licence (SOL) . * Ilias Fotinopoulos & Associates Law Office, Athens, Greece, [email protected] SCRIPT-ed (2007) 4:2 181 “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” 1 Bill Gates “There is evidence, in the shape of the mass of US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. But not otherwise.” Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1371. 1. Introduction The demise of the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions 2 in July 2005 3 signaled the end of one of the most intense lobbying and activist battles in recent years in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Mason Template 1: Title Slide
    Economic Rationales for Patents in the Current Context Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D. Professor & Workman Research Scholar University of Illinois Outline • Ex Ante (Traditional) Patent Rationales • Ex Post Patent Rationales – Coordination Value – Signaling – Monetization Value • Private Ordering – Standards – Patent Pools – Non-Traditional Licensing – Patent Pledges Traditional Ex Ante Justifications • Incentive to create • Incentive to invest in R&D • Incentive to finance Ex Ante Rationales-Still Relevant? • Other motivations to invent – First mover advantage – Trade secret protection – Reputational gains/Professional recognition • Patents are an important mechanism to protect technological innovation, even if one of many. Heterogeneous mix needed. • Other reasons to patent – Ex post rationales – Defensive patenting Ex Post Rationales for Patenting • Patents give rights holders control & ability to engage in numerous activities with confidence that their interest is protected • Prospect Theory: Patent rights motivate the holder to continue to invest (commercialize, improve) in the invention • Tragedy of the Commons: Technological innovation is likely to be used inefficiently unless one rights holder has an individual stake in the efficient use of the technology Ex Post Rationale: Coordination in the Value Chain • Patents allow inventors to specialize and collaborate – E.g., University research & TTOs • Especially important in growing number of fields dominated by cumulative technology – E.g., Cell phone components • Modularity is efficient
    [Show full text]