Peer To Patent

Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20080209399

Methods and systems for tracking and auditing intellectual property in packages of open source software

Collaborate on the process of community review for this application. Posting will not be forwarded to the USPTO. Flagging a post as an ACTION ITEM signals further research. Flagging SPAM and ABUSE helps to manage discussion. Placing double brackets around a reference to a claim or prior art will create a hyperlink to the original ex. [[claim 1]] and [[prior art 2]].

Please review the Community Code of Conduct prior to posting

Discussion (7)

View: Date|Claims|Prior Art|Action Item|

Facilitator's Comment

Action Item

Show without Noise

Mark Nowotarski (over 4 years ago)

This seems to be one of the larger communities form around a pending patent application and yet our chance to comment here on Peer to Patent will end tomorrow 12/17/08.

Is there any sentiment to continue to track this application through examination? If so, then post a comment here or, if you see this after the comment period has closed, feel free to drop me an email at mark.nowotarski@gmail.com

Mark Nowotarski (over 4 years ago)

I couldn find the Palamida patent application. Perhaps it was filed with a nonpublication request.

I did find a more detailed reference and cited it.

Mark Nowotarski (over 4 years ago)

Diane,

Nice find on the Palamina reference! I'm going to take a look for the patent application they reference. That might have some good nuggets in it as well.

Mark Nowotarski (over 4 years ago)

I have a two prong challenge to the members of this community to see if we can add some value to this application.

For the NYLS students:
I submit that Claim 1, as it is currently written, would not pass muster under the current USPTO guidelines for patentable subject matter (35 USC 101). It is a method claim that is not tied to a “particular machine".

Can you find support in the spec for a “particular machine" that claim 1 could be tied to? You might want to review the recent BPAI decision Ex parte Wasynczuk http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd081496.pdf to see what the USPTO currently considers a particular machine.

For the technologists:

I have a feeling that tracking the IP aspects of source code as it is underdevelopment is harder than it looks from a systems requirement standpoint, particularly for a large project. Can you identify any performance problems these inventors might run into when they try to implement this process? For the sake of simplicity, assume that they are only going to worry about copyright violations. Identification of performance roadblocks might give us a clue as to what “particular” machine claim 1 should be tied to.

Bradley Hertz (over 4 years ago)

How would the system work with other countries patents and copyrights, such as the UK's and Canada, Australia, etc., where there is no definite decision whether a patent and/or copyright exists in each country's repository.

Mark Nowotarski (over 4 years ago)

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no definite decision whethere a patent ....exists". These countries do issue patents.

Kendrick Martin (over 4 years ago)

I'm thinking he is referring to the fact that at the present time we can't say if this will get a patent in other countries.

0 days left