<?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>My Blog &#187; patents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bitlords.com/wp/category/patents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bitlords.com/wp</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:04:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Apple Counter-Sues Nokia Over Patents</title>
		<link>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/g1T-0kfaA38/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents</link>
		<comments>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/g1T-0kfaA38/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScuttleMonkey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adeelarshad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[area]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[encryption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRIDAY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GSM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local area network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network lan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nokia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slashdot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state of delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UMTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:rss.slashdot.org://5e14365b8a7d06e7c6ba5e11118970a7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[adeelarshad82 writes "About two months ago Nokia sued Apple for infringing Nokia patents in its iPhone. The 10 patents in the lawsuit, filed in the US state of Delaware, relate to technologies fundamental for devices using GSM, UMTS and/or local area network (LAN) standards. The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007. In the latest development to the case, Apple said Friday that it had filed its own suit against Nokia, countering Nokia's claims of patent infringement with its own."<p><a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/12/11/2048248/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents?from=rss"><img src="http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&#38;op=image&#38;style=h0&#38;sid=09/12/11/2048248"></a></p><p><a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/12/11/2048248/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents?from=rss">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>
<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/u6P8Im6qz0ItxGm9PWTxNdLA18k/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/u6P8Im6qz0ItxGm9PWTxNdLA18k/0/di" border="0"></img></a><br />
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/u6P8Im6qz0ItxGm9PWTxNdLA18k/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/u6P8Im6qz0ItxGm9PWTxNdLA18k/1/di" border="0"></img></a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~4/g1T-0kfaA38" height="1">]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/g1T-0kfaA38/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Appeals Court Tosses Spam Patent</title>
		<link>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/7sT2CXgjpQI/Federal-Appeals-Court-Tosses-Spam-Patent</link>
		<comments>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/7sT2CXgjpQI/Federal-Appeals-Court-Tosses-Spam-Patent#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>CmdrTaco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal district court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slashdot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zordak]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:rss.slashdot.org://01b3e4c70df344b718e540681e494de4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Zordak writes "US patent 6,631,400 claims a method of making sure enough people get your spam. A federal district court had overturned the patent as anticipated and obvious, and not drawn to patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit, the appeals court which hears patent matters, upheld the finding of obviousness, thus invalidating the patent."<p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/03/160208/Federal-Appeals-Court-Tosses-Spam-Patent?from=rss"><img src="http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&#38;op=image&#38;style=h0&#38;sid=09/12/03/160208"></a></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/03/160208/Federal-Appeals-Court-Tosses-Spam-Patent?from=rss">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>
<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/5TVxSTLHVQdAVF0MFkB3zMZpNxs/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/5TVxSTLHVQdAVF0MFkB3zMZpNxs/0/di" border="0"></img></a><br />
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/5TVxSTLHVQdAVF0MFkB3zMZpNxs/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/5TVxSTLHVQdAVF0MFkB3zMZpNxs/1/di" border="0"></img></a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~4/7sT2CXgjpQI" height="1">]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/7sT2CXgjpQI/Federal-Appeals-Court-Tosses-Spam-Patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recipient of First Software Patent Defends Them</title>
		<link>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/2YwMbNx6NNs/Recipient-of-First-Software-Patent-Defends-Them</link>
		<comments>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/2YwMbNx6NNs/Recipient-of-First-Software-Patent-Defends-Them#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kdawson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advancement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arguendo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contexts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[course]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[current development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[difference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goetz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hardware patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ingenuity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifecycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Goetz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O. Goetz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patently]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resemblance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slashdot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software innovations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software lifecycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waterfall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:rss.slashdot.org://bc0a0b99637895398151ac5a01ddb021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arguendo writes "Martin Goetz, who obtained the first software patent in 1968, has penned a thoughtful defense of software patents for Patently-O. Goetz argues that there is no principled difference between software and hardware patents and that truly patentable software innovations require just as much ingenuity and advancement as any other kind of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court is of course currently considering whether to change the scope of patentable subject matter in the Bilski case, which we've discussed before." Does it weaken Goetz's argument that his description of the software lifecycle harks back to the waterfall days and bears little resemblance to current development practice in open source and/or Internet contexts?<p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/0215209/Recipient-of-First-Software-Patent-Defends-Them?from=rss"><img src="http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&#38;op=image&#38;style=h0&#38;sid=09/12/01/0215209"></a></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/0215209/Recipient-of-First-Software-Patent-Defends-Them?from=rss">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>
<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/Zvbxz08kYD1wHRj2B86Lz6n1_kM/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/Zvbxz08kYD1wHRj2B86Lz6n1_kM/0/di" border="0"></img></a><br />
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/Zvbxz08kYD1wHRj2B86Lz6n1_kM/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/Zvbxz08kYD1wHRj2B86Lz6n1_kM/1/di" border="0"></img></a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~4/2YwMbNx6NNs" height="1">]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/2YwMbNx6NNs/Recipient-of-First-Software-Patent-Defends-Them/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.492 seconds -->
