Book chapters will be unavailable on Saturday 24th August between 8am-12pm BST. This is for essential maintenance which will provide improved performance going forwards. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Software patents and university-owned patents represent two of the most controversial intellectual property developments of the past few decades. Various scholars have quarreled with the alleged vagueness and undue breadth of software patent claims. Some have also suggested that, given the poor quality of prior art documentation and patent examiner training in the area of software, many issued software patents are likely to be obvious. More generally, there is significant debate over the extent to which software patents are likely to foster (or hinder) innovation. Because software products are often “complex” and may infringe many patents, some incumbent providers of information technology (IT) products support the limiting of patentability. Perhaps most notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (arguably prompted by the recent questioning of patents on “abstract ideas” by several members of the Supreme Court) recently excluded processes from patentability (including software processes) that are not limited to a physical transformation or machine.
In contrast with software patents, university-owned patents have existed for more than a few decades. The number of university-held patents has increased substantially, however, since the 1980 passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. While the legal question was sometimes murky prior to 1980, Bayh-Dole made it unequivocally clear that universities can patent federally funded research.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.