#Osx microsoft word 2017 not showing chinese characters software#

Well, FRAND brings software patents to Europe, in spite of them being illegal.

#Osx microsoft word 2017 not showing chinese characters free#

The terms “open standards”, “open platforms”, and Free Software are being used more and more often but does it mean that the EU is “opening” up for software freedom for real? My talk will explain how several current EU digital policies interact with Free Software, and each other, and what does it mean to software freedom in Europe.” Three or more magic letters combined in an acronym have, therefore, the power to either support innovation and fair competition, or drown the EU in its vendor lock-in completely. In order to achieve this ambitious goal of allowing Europe’s “own Google or Facebook” to emerge, the EU has come up with several political and legislative proposals that obviously cannot overlook software. From the abstract: “In the coming years, the EU is determined to bring its industries to the digital market and acquire a leading position on the global tech market. “Much to our delight, things are improving in the US (patent scope improved/tightened), whereas in Europe we drift in the opposite direction.”“Laws in Brussels are written by MNCs (Multi-National-Corporations), and FRAND in DSM is part of it,” Benjamin Henrion wrote yesterday, linking to this upcoming talk titled “DSM, EIF, RED: Acronyms on the EU level and why they matter for software freedom” (some of these are used to sneakily bring software patents to Europe). Much to our delight, things are improving in the US (patent scope improved/tightened), whereas in Europe we drift in the opposite direction. And this is so because basically they lack the backbone to call a spade a spade and to note when the Supreme Court has stepped beyond the Court’s authority when it comes to the difference between interpreting the law and writing the law. NOTHING that the Federal Circuit does is of lasting import in the realm of eligibility. So, you may think that you are “moving beyond,” but that is merely a mirage, as you have never left what the Supreme Court has done (is doing) – and that is by design of the Supreme Court.ĭo you really think that such critical terms as “abstract” and “significantly more” are left undefined lacking a reason? They Court simply does not want to be left out of any discussion of eligibility, even as it is beyond the Court’s allocated powers to write law in this area. This is a direct offshoot of what the Supreme Court has been doing and can be seen to be why the Court refuses to draw any clear lines.

#Osx microsoft word 2017 not showing chinese characters driver#

Here is a new comment from IP Kat:Īnything by the Federal Circuit is of momentary import and cannot be considered “the driver seat.”

Even the Federal Circuit, which helped bring software patents to the US in the first place, has become exceedingly hostile towards them.

They must be nervous and they are panicking as many software patents they helped clients get (past, not future) are worthless pieces of paper right now. We have come to expect that from Watchtroll, who is stooping quite low these days. One of the most vocal proponents of software patents in Europe took note of it and Watchtroll, probably the most vocal proponent of software patents in the US, is trying to promote ‘cheating’ the system to patent software in spite of Alice. “Claims to alerting functionality can face stiff headwinds when challenged under Section 101, especially when not supported by a specification, or better, claim language, calling out technical improvements.” “This is an unsurprising result in the post-Alice world,” it concludes. “…many software patents they helped clients get (past, not future) are worthless pieces of paper right now.”In other news, “Patent Claims to Weather Alerts Not Patent-Eligible Under Section 101,” says a pro-software patenting site.

Google is pursuing software patents on driving and there is growing concern that this “could raise risk of patent litigation” so Google should not be viewed as an innocent victim here. If the Office continues to grant these and most of the time US courts deem these invalid, what will that say about the Office?Īccording to this, Alice has just had another belated casualty because “US Pat 5,841,115, Nutritional information system Killed w/Alice by Google” (a software patent). THE US Patent Office ( USPTO) begrudgingly comes to grips with the fact that software patents are a passing fad. Summary: The United States continues its gradual crackdown on software patents (which are viewed as abstract and thus unpatentable), whereas in Europe things are murkier than ever Roy SchestowitzĪlso: Why the EPO rapidly becomes the greater culprit Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:28 am by Dr. 08.22.16 The Collapse of Software Patents and Patent Law Firms Trying to “Overcome” Alice