Privacy Law
Volume 1
Issue 1
Computer/Law Journal
Article 6
1978
Software Patentability Bibliography, 1 Computer
L.J. 233 (1978)
Michael D. Scott
Follow this and additional works at:
http://repository.jmls.edu/jitpl
Part of the
Computer Law Commons
,
Intellectual Property Law Commons
,
Internet Law
Commons
,
Privacy Law Commons
, and the
Science and Technology Law Commons
http://repository.jmls.edu/jitpl/vol1/iss1/6
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The John Marshall Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of The John Marshall Institutional Repository.
Recommended Citation
BIBLIOGRAPHYt
by Michael D. Scott*
INTRODUCTION
References contained herein are to articles and other materials which discuss the issue of software patentability either exclusively, or at least as the main topic of interest. Articles devoted to analyzing other forms of protection for programs-copyright, trade secret, or contract-are generally omitted from this list. Further, only articles in the English language are included.
Each entry has been checked and double-checked to insure accura-cy. Obscure references have been located and several unpublished works have been tracked down. Numerous authors were personally contacted to obtain the correct citations to their articles, or to refer-ences cited in their articles. Yet, despite all precautions, it is possible that there are errors and omissions in this listing. Because this issue will be supplemented on an annual basis, it is requested that any corrections or additions be sent to Michael D. Scott, Esq., c/o Smaltz & Neelley, 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 440, Los Angeles, California 90014. (If the reference is to a publication not generally available in university librar-ies, it would be of substantial assistance if a copy of the article, or the table of contents of the book or periodical containing the article, were included.)
ORGANIZATION
The entries in the Bibliography are subdivided into four sections. This was done to enable the user who is looking for specific types of materials, e.g., law review articles, newspaper articles, etc. to more quickly locate those references.
The first grouping contains references to all articles printed in legal publications. The second contains all "Notes" and "Comments" done by law students. The third collects all legal materials which do not fall
t © 1978 Michael D. Scott.
* B.S. 1967, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; J.D. 1974, University of California Los Angeles. Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Southwestern Uni-versity School of Law, Los Angeles, California. Editor-in-Chief, Computer/Law
within the first two categories. The last section contains references to non-legal materials, i.e., articles contained in electronics, computer or business journals, and in newspapers and magazines of general
circula-tion.
LEGAL-ARTICLES
Baker, An Antitrust Look at Software Patents and Restraints, in COM-PUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1969 PROCEEDINGS,
at I-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1969).
Banzhaf, When a Computer Needs a Lawyer, 71 DICK. L. REV. 240,253-55 (1967).
Basanta, Patents and Computer Programs-The Supreme Court Makes a Decision, 62 Ky. L.J. 533 (1973-74).
Bender, Computer Programs: Should They Be Patentable?, 68 COLUM. L. REV. 241 (1968).
Bigelow, Are Programs Intangible?, 4 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Dec. 1977, at 1.
Bigelow, Are Programs Patentable When Combined With General Pur-pose Computers?, 1 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Apr. 1975, at 1. Bigelow, Can An Emulating Computer Infringe a Patent?, 2 COMPUTER
L. & TAX REP., Apr. 1976, at 1.
Bigelow, Infosystems, the Law and Patents, 13 JURIMETRICS J. 129 (1973), reprinted from 20 INFOSYSTEMS, Feb. 1973, at 34.
Bigelow, Is An Encryption Algorithm Patentable? Selection of IBM
Systems by NBS May Raise Question, 1 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP.,
May 1975, at 1.
Bigelow, Kewanee Case Postscript Offers Trade Secret Dispute Solu-tion, 3 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Aug. 1976, at 1.
Bigelow, Legal Protection of Proprietary Software-A Special Report, 3 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Nov. 1976, at 4.
Bigelow, Legal Protection of Software: A Matter of Monumental
Insig-nificance?, 4 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Feb. 1977, at 1.
Bigelow, On the Software Patent Front, 3 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., July
1977, at 1.
Bigelow, Patent Commissioner Attacks Patent Litigation, 3 COMPUTER
L. & TAX REP., Oct. 1976, at 6.
Bigelow, Patent Office Sticks to Guns, 3 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Apr. 1977, at 7.
Bigelow, Patents: Supreme Court to Review Flook, 4 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Feb. 1977, at 3.
Bigelow, "Prior Art" Search Essential to Maintain Validity of Com-puter Patent, 1 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Mar. 1975, at 1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bigelow, Software Patents, 2 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., May 1976, at 1. Bigelow, Supreme Court Again Ducks Software Patentability Decision,
2 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., May 1976, at 1.
Bigelow, Supreme Court Still Ducks Decision on Software Patents; CCPA Confuses Problem, 4 COMPUTER L. & TAX REP., Dec. 1977, at 6.
Brenner, The Future of Computer Programs in the United States Patent Office, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PROCEEDINGS, at B-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1968).
Brothers & Grimaldi, Comments/In re Prater and Patent Reform Propo-sals: 'Debugging' the Patent Office's Administration of Computer Program Applications, 18 CATH. U. L. REV. 389 (1968), reprinted in
51 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'y 581 (1969).
Buckman, Protection of Proprietary Interests in Computer Programs, 51 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'y 135 (1969).
Call, Client's Invention Disclosure, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP,
SOFr-WARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 291 (1969). Carnahan, High Court Snags Patentability of Computer Programs, 16
A.F. L. REV. 23 (Summer 1974).
Cary, The Registrability of Computer Programs, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PROCEEDINGS, at C-15 (I. Kayton ed. 1968).
Davis, Computer Programs and Subject Matter Patentability, 6 RUT-GERS J. COMPUTERS & L. 1 (1977).
Dixon, Patentability in the Computer Domain, 5 PAT. L. ANN. 187 (1967).
Dobyns & Block, Adequate Disclosure of Computers and Programs for Computers in Patent Specifications, 56 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 574 (1974).
Doud, The Business of Software and Its Protection, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE COMPUTERS-IN-LAW OF SOFTWARE 1969 PROCEEDINGS, at P-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1969).
Duggan, Patent on Programs? The Supreme Court Says No, 13
JURIMETRiCS J. 135 (1973), expanded from 16 COM. ACM 60 (1973). Dunner, Nonstatutory Subject Matter, 14 JURIMETRICS J. 113 (1973),
reprinted from 1 GAMBRELL, PAT. L. PERSPECTIVES A-2 (1973).
Elacqua, In re Johnston: Patentability of Computer Software-The Bat-tle Rages On, 2 OHio N.L. REV. 782 (1975).
Eltgroth, Software and the Patent Law, 4 PAT. L. ANN. 1 (1966).
Etienne & Goldberg, Patent and Copyright Implications of Electronic Data Processing, 8 IDEA 1976 (Conf. Issue 1964).
Falk, Introduction [to Special Issue on Computer Programming and Patent Law], 5 AM. PAT. L.A. Q.J. 8 (1977).
Falk, Mental Steps and the Patent Law-A Rumination, 8 PAT. L. ANN.
Falk, Patentability of Inventions Which Utilize Digital Computers, Part
I: The Current Status, 15 PAT. L. ANN. 265 (1977).
Falk, Potential Changes in the Law of Software, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT
304 (1969).
Falk, The Use of Apparatus and Operational Method Claims by Pat-entees, 54 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 723 (1972).
Falk & Popper, Computer Programs and Nonstatutory Subject Matter
in Canada, 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 9-4, art. 2.
Felsman, Computer Program Protection, 34 TEXAS B.J. 33 (1971). Freed, Protection of Proprietary Programs in Light of Benson and
Tab-bot, 13 JURIMETRICS J. 139 (1973).
Freed, Protection of Proprietary Software Programs in the United States, in COMPUTER COMMUNICATION: IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 403 (Winkler ed. 1972).
Galbi, The Aftermath of the Benson and Tabbot Decision, in 3 R.
BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 4-2, art. 2.
Galbi, Proposal for New Legislation to Protect Computer
Pro-gramming, 17 BULL. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y 280 (1970).
Galbi, The Prospect of Future Legislation and Court Action Concerning the Protection of Programming, 13 JURIMETRICS J. 235 (1973). Galbi, The Unpatentability of Computer Programs, 5 PAT. L. ANN. 147
(1967).
Gambrell, Problems of Software Protection, in COMPUTERS, SOCIETY &
LAW: THE ROLE OF LEGAL EDUCATION 59 (J. Leninger & B. Gilchrist
ed. 1973).
Goetz, Protecting Computer Program Concepts and Copies, 14 IDEA 7 (Conf. Issue 1970).
Goldberg, Legal Protection of EDP Software, 5 L. & COMPUTER TECH. 97 (1972).
Haanstra, Software: An Independent Existence?, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PROCEEDINGS, at A-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1968).
Hamann, Editorial, 5 AM. PAT. L.A. Q.J. 2 (1977).
Hammer, Computer Program Protection, 14 IDEA 10 (Conf. Issue 1970). Henderson, Proprietary Rights in the Use of the Computer-Patent, in
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPUTER AND LAW CONFERENCE 149 (D.
John-ston ed. 1968).
Henderson & Falk, The Patentability of Computers, Computer Systems and Programs, 24 BULL. CAN. PAT. & T.M. INST. (SER. 7), Apr. 1969, at 57.
Horwitz, Austria-Patentability of Computer Programs, 1972 BULL. AM. PAT. L.A. 170.
Horwitz, Canada-Patentability of Computer Programs, 1972 BULL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Iandiorio, Which Wei Did They Go?, 53 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 712 (1971). Iandiorio, Protecting Computer Programs-The Conventional Forms of
Protection Are Still Available, 16 BOSTON B.J., Nov. 1972, at 25. Jacobs, Commission's Report (Re: Computer Programs), 49 J. PAT. OFF.
Soc'y 372 (1967).
Jacobs, Computer Technology (Hardware and Software): Some Legal Implications for Antitrust, Copyright and Patents, 1 RUTGERS J.
COMPUTERS & L. 50-69 (Fall 1970).
Jacobs, Patent, Copyright and Trade Secret Aspects of Computers, in ABA, COMPUTERS AND THE LAW: AN INTRODUCTORY HANDBOOK 90 (R. Bigelow ed. 1966).
Jacobs, Patent Protection of Computer Programs, 47 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 6 (1965), reprinted from 7 COM. ACM 583 (1964).
Jacobs, Patents for Software Inventions-The Supreme Court's Deci-sion, 55 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 59 (1973), reprinted in 13 JURIMETRICS J.
132 (1973).
Jacobs, Patentable Machines-Systems Embodiable in Hardware or Software (The Myth of the Non-Machine), in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PROCEEDINGS, at B-77 (I. Kayton ed. 1968).
Jacobs, Proprietary Protection of Hardware and Software, in ABA,
COMPUTERS AND THE LAW 147 (2d ed. R. Bigelow 1969).
Johnsen, Observations on the Patentability of Computer Software, 2 I.I.C. 71 (1971).
Katona, Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 47 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 955 (1965).
Kaul, And Now, State Protection of Intellectual Property?, 60 A.B.A.J. 198, 200 (1974).
Kayton, Patent Protectability of Software: Background and Current Law, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968
PROCEEDINGS, at B-25 (I. Kayt6n ed. 1968), reprinted in 10 JURIMETRICS J. 153 (1968).
Kayton, Protection and Licensing of Computer Software, Before and
After Lear, 2 PRoc. LICENSING L. & PRAC. INST. 432 (1970).
Keeffe & Maher, Protecting Software: Is It Worth All the Trouble?, 62 A.B.A.J. 906 (1976).
Kindermann, Special Protection Systems for Computer Programs-A Comparative Study, 7 I.I.C. 301 (1976).
Kirby, Industrial Property Protection for Software, 5 I.C.C. 169 (1974). Kirby & Curphey, Drift Away from the "Vendible Product" Doctrine in
Canada, 11 INDUS. PROP. 213 (1972).
Koller, Proprietary Rights in Computer Software Inventions: Prelimi-nary Results of Two Surveys, 14 IDEA 3 (Conf. Issue 1970).
Koller, Computer Software Protection: Report of An Institute Clinic, 13
IDEA 351 (1969-70), reprinted in 3 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. §
Koller & Moshman, Patent Protection for Computer Software: Implica-tions for the Industry, 12 IDEA 1109 (1968).
Kurtz, Examples of Inventions Embodying Software Types of Disclo-sure, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 160 (1969).
Lattes, The European Scene, in BRITISH COMPUTER SOC'Y, SOFTWARE PROTECTION: THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS 34 (Conf. Rep. 1969).
Lawlor, The American View, in BRITISH COMPUTER SOC'Y, SOFTWARE PROTECTION: THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS 22 (Conf. Rep. 1969).
Lawlor, Benson and Beyond, in 3 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 4-2,
art. 3.
Letson, Computer Program Protection in Three British Commonwealth Countries: What Can U.S. Learn?, 15 IDEA 304 (1971).
McClaskey, The Mental Process Doctrine: Its Origin, Legal Basis and Scope, 55 IOWA L. REV. 1148 (1970).
McFarlane, Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 1970 J. Bus. L. 204 (1970).
Melville, Legal Protection of Software, 119 NEW L.J. 1169 (1969). Milde, Can a Computer Be An "Author" or An "Inventor"?, 51 J. PAT.
OFF. Soc'y 378 (1969), reprinted in 2 PAT. L. REV. 568 (1970). Milgrim, Software, Carfare and Benson, 13 JURIMETRICS J. 240 (1973),
reprinted from 19 DATAMATION, Apr. 1973, at 75.
Miller, Software Patents Today, 10 PAT. L. ANN. 151 (1972).
Niblett, Computer Software and the Law, in 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 9-4, art. 4.
Nimtz, Computer Application and Claim Drafting Under Current Law, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SEC-RET, CONTRACT, PATENT 242 (1969).
Nimtz, Computers, Programs and the Patent Laws, 11 IDEA 199 (1967).
Nimtz, The Data Processing Revolution, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 125 (1969).
Nimtz, Mental Step Doctrine As Developed in the Case Law, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 141 (1969).
Nimtz, The Patentability of Computer Programs, 1 RUTGERS J. COM-PUTERS & L. 38 (Spring 1970).
Nimtz, The Supporting Disclosure, 5 PAT. L. ANN. 191 (1967).
Pagenberg, Patentability of Computer Programs On the National and International Level, 5 I.I.C. 1 (1974).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pascal, Legal Protection for Computer Programs, 21 BULL. CAN. PAT. & T.M. INST. (SERIES 7) 83 (1967).
Popper, Current Status of Patent Protection for Programmable
Process-es, 7 PAT. L. ANN. 37 (1969).
Popper, From Hardware to Software: An Adventure Having Some Sur-prises, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 99 (1969).
Popper, Method Claims for Protecting Programmable Processes, in
COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PRO-CEEDINGS, at B-55 (I. Kayton ed. 1968).
Popper, Prater II, 19 AM. U. L. REV. 25 (1969).
Popper, Technology and Programming-Is It a Problem in Definitions?, 5 AM. PAT. L.A. Q.J. 13 (1977).
Popper & Kayton, Adequacy and Nature of Disclosure in Software
Applications-Current Case Law, in PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT 132
(1969).
Preston, Searching in the Programming Arts, 5 AM. PAT. L.A. Q.J. 30 (1976).
Puckett, The Limits of Copyright and Patent Protection for Computer Programs, 16 ASCAP COPYRIGHT L. SYMP. 81 (1968).
Rackman, Re: Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 48 J. PAT. OFF.
SOC'Y 275 (1966).
Richards, Patentability of Inventions Which Utilize Digital Computers, Part II: A Case for Geophysical Methods and Systems Involving
Signal Processing, 15 PAT. L. ANN. 273 (1977).
Richards, Recent Developments in Patent Law, in SOUTHWESTERN LEG-AL FOUNDATION, PATENT PROCUREMENT AND EXPLOITATION 97, 106
(1963).
Scafetta, Computer Software Protection: The Copyright Revision Bills and Alternatives, 8 JOHN MARSHALL J. PRAC. & PROC. 381, 390-95 (1975).
Scafetta, Programming Technology as an Infringement, 5 AM. PAT. L.A. Q.J. 35 (1977).
Scherback, Computer Program: Unpatentable Offspring of a Sacred Cow?, 5 PAT. L. ANN. 195 (1967).
Schuyler, Protecting Property in Computer Software, in COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE COMPUTERS-IN-LAW OF SOFTWARE 1969 PROCEEDINGS, at H-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1969), reprinted in 3 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. §
4-1, art. 4.
Seidel, Antitrust, Patent and Copyright Law Implications of Computer Technology, 6 A.B.A. ANTITRUST BULL. 549 (1961), reprinted in 44 J.
PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 116 (1962).
Sheers & Encke, Copyrights or Patents for Computer Programs?, 49 J.
PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 323 (1967).
Sher, Comment: Commissioner of Patents v. Benson, et al., 56 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 179 (1974).
Smilow, Comments on Computers-in-Law Institute's First Annual
Conference, 50 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 779 (1968).
Soltysinski, Computer Programs and Patent Law: A Comparative Study, 3 RUTGERS J. COMPUTERS & L. 1 (1973).
Spaeth, High Court Seen Likely to Reject Patents, 5 L. & COMPUTER TECH. 50 (1972).
Spencer, Retrieval of Programming Technology for Patent Purposes, 52
J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 125 (1970).
Stork, Legal Protection for Computer Programs: A Practicing Attor-ney's Approach, 20 ASCAP COPYRIGHT L. SYMP. 112 (1972).
Sutton, The "Mental Steps" Doctrine: A Critical Analysis in the Light
of Prater and Wei, 13 IDEA 458 (1969), reprinted in 52 J. PAT. OFF.
Soc'Y 479 (1970).
Upchurch, A Template for Judicial Resolution of Computer Program Patentability, 9 GA. L. REV. 855 (1975).
Wessel, Legal Protection for Computer Programs, 43 HARv. Bus. REV. 97 (Mar.-Apr. 1965).
Wessel, Some Implications of the Software Decision, 14 JURIMETRICS J. 110 (1973), reprinted from 19 DATAMATION, Feb. 1973, at 166. Woodcock, The Implications of the Prater and Wei Decision, in
COM-PUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1969 PROCEEDINGS,
at D-1 (I. Kayton ed. 1969).
Woodcock, Mental Steps and Computer Program, 52 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 275 (1970).
Wurst, Patents on Computer Programs, 46 L.A. B. BULL. 213 (1971). Impact on Economic, Technological and Cultural Change, Part
B-Crises in Communications, Protection of Computer Programs, 13
IDEA 205, 246-56 (Conf. Issue 1969).
LEGAL-STUDENT WORKS
Comment, Computer Program Classification: A Limitation on Program
Patentability as a Process, 53 ORE. L. REV. 501 (1974).
Comment, Computer Program Protection: The Need to Legislate a
So-lution, 54 CORN. L. REV. 586 (1969).
Comment, Computer Programs are Patentable, 1 SETON HALL L. REV. 113 (1970).
Comment, Computer Software: Beyond the Limits of Existing
Propriet-ary Protection Policy, 40 BROOKLYN L. REV. 116 (1973).
Comment, Dann v. Johnston: Program Patentability Postponed, 1976
DET. COLL. L. REV. 663 (1976).
Comment, Mathematics, Computers and In re Prater: The Medium and The Message, 58 GEO. L.J. 391 (1969), reprinted in 2 PAT. L. REV.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comment, Patent Law-Computer Programs for Processing Data With a Digital Computer Cannot Be Patented Under Present United States Laws, 4 Loy. CI. L.J. 560 (1973).
Comment, Patentability of Computer Software: The Nonobviousness Issue, 62 IOWA L. REV. 615 (1976).
Comment, Patentability: Piecing Together The Computer Software Pat-ent Puzzle, 19 ST. Louis U. L.J. 351 (1975).
Comment, Patents: Proposed Guidelines to Examination of Programs, 4
TULSA L.J. 258 (1967).
Comment, Process Patents for Computer Programs, 56 CALIF. L. REV.
446 (1968), reprinted in 1 PAT. L. REV. 555 (1969).
Note, Adequate Legal Protection for Computer Programs, 1968 UTAH L. REV. 369.
Note, Computer Programs and Proposed Revisions of the Patent and Copyright Laws, 81 HARV. L. REV. 1541 (1968).
Note, Gottschalk v. Benson: A Bright Light With A Dim Future, 28
BAYLOR L. REV. 187 (1976).
Note, Gottschalk v. Benson-The Supreme Court Takes A Hard Line on
Software, 47 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 635 (1973).
Note, In re Johnson: New Output By the CCPA on the Patentability of Computer Software, 36 U. PITT. L. REV. 739 (1975).
Note, Patent Law--Another Step Past Prater-In re Musgrave, 2 SETON HALL L. REV. 551 (1971).
Note, Patent Law-Computer Programs-Unpatentable Mental Pro-cesses-Gottschalk v. Benson, 14 B.C. INDUS. & COM. L. REV. 1050 (1973).
Note, The Patentability of Computer Programs, 38 N.Y.U. L. REV. 891 (1963).
Note, Patentability of Computer Programs, 27 U. MIAMI L. REV. 494 (1973).
Note, Patents for Software Inventions-The Supreme Court's Decision, 55 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 59 (1973).
Note, Patents-Patentability-A Process Performable on a Analog Computer Which Also Reads Upon a General Purpose Digital Com-puter Does Not Necessarily Fall Within the "Mental Steps" Exclu-sion and May Be Patentable If the Specificity Requirements of Section 112 Are Fulfilled, 48 TEX. L. REV. 971 (1970).
Note, Patents-Process Claims-No Limiation of Invention Specif-ication Can Be Read Into a Claim Where No Express Statement of the Limitation is Included in the Claim, 4 GA. L. REV. 404 (1970). Note, Petty Patents in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Solution to
the Problem of Computer Software Protection?, 8 Sw. U. L. REV. 888 (1976).
Note, Protection of Computer Programs: Resurrection of the Standard, 50 NOTRE DAME LAWYER 333 (1974).
Note, Protecting Proprietary Rights of Computer Programs: The Need for New Legislative Protection, 21 CATH. U. L. REV. 181 (1971). Note, Protection of Computer Software-A Hard Problem, 26 DRAKE L.
REV. 180 (1976-77).
Note, Software Protection: Patents, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets, 35
ALBANY L. REV. 695 (1971).
Note, Softwear, Statutes and Stare Decisis, 13 HOWARD L.J. 420 (1967).
LEGAL-OTHER
R. BERNACCHI & G. LARSEN, DATA PROCESSING CONTRACTS AND THE LAW
445-61 (1974).
BRITISH COMPUTER Soc'Y, Proprietary Software Protection, reprinted in 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 9-4, art. 1.
BRITISH COMPUTER SOC'Y, SOFTWARE PROTECTION: THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS (Conf. Rep. 1969).
CANADIAN PATENT OFFICE, GUIDELINES, CAN. PAT. OFF. REC., Dec. 28,
1971, at viii.
Carnahan, Protection of Computer Programs-A Dilemma (U.S.A.F. Research Rep. 72-2, Apr. 1972).
COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1968 PROCEEDINGS
(I. Kayton ed. 1968).
COMPUTERS-IN-LAW INSTITUTE, THE LAW OF SOFTWARE 1969 PROCEEDINGS
(I. Kayton ed. 1969).
Duncan, Canadian Business and Economic Implications of Protecting Computer Programs (Ph.D. Dissertation, U. Texas-Austin, Dec.
1975).
Kaufman and Bennett, A Proposed Approach to the Evaluation of So-Called Computer Programs (1968) (unpublished paper on file with Group 222, United States Pat. Off., Arlington, Va.).
Nimtz, Comments on Guidelines to Examination of Programs (1966) (unpublished paper submitted to Patent Office in connection with the Hearings on the Patent Office Guidelines to Examination of
Programs, Oct. 4, 1966).
PATENT RESOURCES GROUP, SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY TRADE SECRET, CONTRACT, PATENT (1969).
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE PATENT SYSTEM, To PROMOTE THE PROG-RESS OF USEFUL ARTS IN AN AGE OF EXPLODING TECHNOLOGY, 12, 13
(1966). reprinted in S. Doc. No. 5, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 12, 13 (1967).
UNITED KINGDOM PATENT OFFICE, PATENT APPLICATIONS FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMS, reprinted in 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV., app.
9-4b.
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, GUIDELINES TO EXAMINATION OF APPLICA-TIONS FOR PATENTS ON COMPUTER PROGRAMS, 855 Off. Gaz. Pat. Of-fice 829 (Oct. 22, 1968), rescinded, 868 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 349
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, PRACTICE RE APPLICATIONS INVOLVING COMPUTER PROGRAMS, 954 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 550 (Dec. 14, 1976).
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, GUIDELINES TO EXAMINATION OF PRO-GRAMS, 829 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 441 (Aug. 9, 1966); 829 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 865 (Aug. 16, 1966).
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, REPORT OF THE HEARING ON THE PATENT OFFICE'S GUIDELINES TO EXAMINATION OF PROGRAMS, Oct. 4, 1966 (on
file in the United States Patent Office).
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION, REPORT OF THE ADVISORY GROUP OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL EXPERTS ON THE PROTECTION OF COM-PUTER PROGRAMS, (June 17-20, 1974), reprinted in 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV. § 9-4, art. 6.
Absence of Key Algorithm Fatal Flaw in Disclosure, 192 PAT., T M. &
COPYRIGHT J., (BNA), at A-1 (Aug. 29, 1974).
Applicant Unwilling to Disclose Computer Program Must Show It's
Within Skill of Art, 146 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-3 (Sep. 27, 1973).
Are Computer Programs Ever Patentable? Did the Patent Office Win?, 124 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at C-1 (Apr. 19, 1973),
re-printed in 13 JURIMETRICS J. 248 (1973).
Attempts to Obtain Computer Program Patents, 141 U.S.P.Q. ADVANCE SHEETS, May 1964, at III & IV.
Canada Alters Stance on Computer Programs, 58 PAT., T.M. &
Copy-RIGHT J. (BNA), at A-3 (Dec. 23, 1971).
CCPA Again Holds "Mental Steps" No Bar To Patentability of
Com-puter Programs, 28 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-15 (May 20, 1971).
CCPA Again Upholds Claim to Programmed Computers, 140 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Aug. 9, 1973).
CCPA Holds Computer Assisted Method For Preparation of Sales Doc-uments Obvious, 374 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-16 (Sep. 29, 1977).
CCPA Rules Method of Using New Formula to Calculate Known
Pa-rameter is Unpatentable, 132 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-2 (June 14, 1973).
CCPA Says Claims Defining Programmed General Purpose Computer
Are Patentable, 139 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Aug. 2, 1973).
Computer Program is Denied Swiss Patent, 132 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT
J. (BNA), at A-13 (June 14, 1973).
Decisions-Patent Law-Austria- 'Algorithm", 2 I.C.C. 206 (1971). Divided CCPA Sustains "Apparatus" Claims Employing Computer
Program, 305 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-2, E-1 (Nov. 25, 1976).
Divided CCPA Sustains "Method" Claims Employing Computer Pro-gram, 305 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1, D-1 (Nov. 25, 1976).
Government Files Brief in Dann v. Johnston, 241 PAT., T.M. & CoPy-RIGHT J. (BNA), at A-9 (Aug. 21, 1975).
Mathematical Calculation Not Patentable Even Though Limited to Specific Purpose, 350 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-2 (Oct.
20, 1977).
"Mental Steps" Are No Bar to Allowance of Process Claims, 1 PAT.,
T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-2 (Nov. 5, 1970).
Method Claims Incidentally Employing Computer Program Are Pat-entable, 328 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-10 (May 12, 1977).
No Patent Where "Practical Effect" of Claims is to Preempt Algorithm, 339 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-3 (Aug. 4, 1977). Patent Office Sets Tentative Policy on Computer Programs, 106 PAT.,
T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-8 (Dec. 7, 1972).
Patentability of Computer Programs Reaffirmed by CCPA, 75 PAT., T.M.
& COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Apr. 27, 1972).
Policy Recommendations re Protection of Computer Programs, in
ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA, REPORT ON INTELLECTUAL AND INDUS-TRIAL PROPERTY 101 (Jan. 1971).
Process Claim Which Uses Algorithm As Intermediate Step is Pat-entable, 340 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Aug. 11, 1977).
Program Must be Disclosed for Computer Which is Not Used in
"Conventional" Manner, 144 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-15 (Sep. 13, 1973).
Programmed Computer Held Not to Infringe Patented Machine System, 250 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-4 (Oct. 23, 1975). Respondent Files Brief in Dann v. Johnston, 254 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT
J. (BNA), at A-1 (Nov. 20, 1975).
Secondary Factors Need Not Always Be Considered in Determining Obviousness, 325 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Apr. 21, 1977).
Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Patentability of Computer Programs, 66 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-12 (Feb. 24, 1972). Supreme Court Asked to Determine Patentability of Computer
Pro-grams, 48 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Oct. 14, 1971). Supreme Court Called Upon Again to Determine Fate of Computer
Programs, 354 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-i, D-1 (Nov. 17, 1977).
Supreme Court Decides Dann v. Johnston on Obviousness Grounds, 272
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Supreme Court Declares Computer Program Unpatentable: Action by Congress Needed, 104 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at D-1 (Nov. 23, 1972).
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Dann v. Johnston, 257 PAT.,
T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-13 (Nov. 11, 1975).
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Patentability of Computer Pro-grams, 99 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Nov. 19, 1972). Supreme Court is Called Upon to Prevent 'Circumvention' of
Gottschalk v. Benson, 217 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-9 (Feb. 27, 1975).
Supreme Court to Review Computer Program Case, 362 PAT., T.M. &
COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-9 (Jan. 19, 1978).
Supreme Court Review of Patent Cases Sought-Computers, 341 PAT.,
T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-12 (Aug. 18, 1977).
Supreme Court Trims Its Docket, Denies Review of Computer Cases,
348 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Oct. 6, 1977).
Supreme Court Urged to Rule on Patentability of Software Programs, 329 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1, D-1, E-1 (May 19, 1977).
Supreme Court Will Take Another Look at Patentability of Computer Programs, 228 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (May 15, 1975).
Tying Computer to Apparatus No Guarantee of Patentability, 350 PAT.,
T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-1 (Oct. 20, 1977).
Unanimous CCPA Sustains Method Claims Incidentally Employing Computer Program, 328 PAT., T.M. & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA), at A-10 (May 12, 1977).
NON-LEGAL
Anglin, On Program Protection, 14 DATAMATION, Feb. 1968, at 12. Ass'n Data Processing Serv./Software Indus. Ass'n., Software Should
Be Patentable, 24 COMPUTERS & PEOPLE, Dec. 1975, at 14.
Ass'n Independent Software Companies, Legal Protection for Computer
Programs, 18 COMPUTERS & AUTOMATION, Feb. 1969, at 12, reprinted
in 3 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV., app. 4-1a.
Banks, The Patenting of Software, speech reported in 15 THE COMPUTER
BULL. 94 (1971).
Banzhaf, Legal Protection for Computer Programs, 6 DATA PROCESSING MAGAZINE, July 1964, at 8.
Banzhaf, (Letter to Editor), 7 DATA PROCESSING MAGAZINE, Jan. 1965, at
13.
Banzhaf, On Computers and Programs-Copyright and Patents, 8 CoM. ACM 220 (1965).
Banzhaf, Portion of Statement Before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee, June 17, 1965, 14 COMPUTERS & AUTOMATION,
Sep. 1965, at 9, and 14 COMPUTERS & AUTOMATION, Oct. 1965, at 10.
Barr, Patent Row Resumes-Hit Senate Bill on Software Exclusion, Electronic News, Feb. 5, 1968, at 1, col. 2.
Barr, Program Patenting Seen Likely, Electronic News, Apr. 29, 1968, at 46, col. 5.
Barr, Ruling May Slow Patent Revision, Electronic News, Nov. 27, 1972, at 41, col. 1.
Barr, Senate to Review Law on Software, Electronic News, Mar. 5, 1973, at 24, col. 4.
Bennett, Software Patent Discord Hits UK, Computerworld, Aug. 5, 1970, at 6, col. 1.
Bigelow, Infosystems, the Law and Patents, 20 INFOSYSTEMS, Feb. 1973, at 34, reprinted in 13 JURIMETRICS J. 129 (1973).
Bigelow, Legal Aspects of Proprietary Software, 14 DATAMATION, Oct.
1968, at 32.
Bigelow, The Patentability of Software, 5 MODERN DATA, June 1972, at 34.
Boonin, Patents and Copyrights-What Should Be Protected?, 8 COM. ACM 474 (1965).
Bride, First Program Patent Issues Under New Rule-Bernhart-Fetter Precedent, Computerworld, June 24, 1970, at 1, col. 1.
Bride, Lawyer Tells Session: Enforcing Software Patents Will Be Dif-ficult, Computerworld, May 13, 1970, at 16, col. 1.
Bride, Lawyers Update Software Scene: Appeals Court Clarifies Patent Restrictions, Procedures, Computerworld, Apr. 8, 1970, at 12, col.
1.
Bride, Patent or Copyright: Part 1-Users Say Program Protection 'Vitalfor Development', Computerworld, Dec. 12, 1969, at 4, col. 1. Bride, Patent or Copyright: Part 2-Unprotected Programs Could
Be-come Trade Secrets, Computerworld, Dec. 17, 1969, at 5, col. 1. Bride, Software Patents: A Spur to Industry Competition?,
Com-puterworld, Feb. 23, 1972, at 5, col. 1.
British Computer Soc'y, Banks Committee, 13 THE COMPUTER BULL. 329
(1969).
BRITISH COMPUTER SOC'Y, PROC. OF CONF. ON SOFTWARE PROTECTION
(1969).
British Computer Soc'y Law Group, Patent Protection for Computer Programs (Interim Report), 8 THE COMPUTER BULL., following p. 146 (1965).
Bull, Legal Protection of Computer Programmes, in IFIP ADMINISTRA-TiVE DATA PROCESSING GROUP, CONFERENCE BOOK, DATA CENTRE '72
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clampett, Program Patents-Yea or Nay, 13 DATAMATION, Dec. 1967, at 140.
Constantine, The Processright: Protection for Programs, 2 MODERN DATA, June 1969, at 24.
Davidson, Practical Considerations in Program Patentability, 17
CoM-PUTERS & AUTOMATION, May 1968, at 12.
Duggan, Patents and Programs: The ACM's Position, 14 CoM. ACM 278 (1971).
Duggan, Patents on Computer Programs? Round Six and No Decision in View!, 12 CoM. ACM 589 (1969).
Duggan, Patents on Programs? The Supreme Court Says No, 16 CoM. ACM 60 (1973), expanded and reprinted in 13 JuRImETRIcs J. 135 (1973).
Duggan, Software Protection, 15 DATAMATION, Jun. 1969, at 113. Ferguson, Software Inventor Challenges His Challenger's Statements,
Computerworld, Apr. 16, 1969, at 8, col. 3.
Freed, Some Program Patents OK, But Trade Secrets Better,
Com-puterworld, Dec. 27, 1972, at 20, col. 1.
Fromholz, Legal Problems of Proprietary Software, 6 COMPUTER, Dec.
1973, at 26.
Galbi, Software and Patents: A Status Report, 14 COM. ACM 274 (1971). Galler, Proprietary Packages: A Point of View, 11 COM. ACM 802
(1968).
Girard, Gov't Argues Against Bell Patent, Computerworld, Oct. 23, 1972, at 44, col. 3.
Girard, High Court to Hear Arguments on Patenting Software,
Com-puterworld, Oct. 9, 1972, at 51, col. 1.
Girard, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Bell Labs Program 'Idea; Therefore Not Patentable, Electronic News, Nov. 27, 1972, at 1, col. 3. Goetz, A Different Viewpoint on the Benson-Tabbot Decision, 16 COM.
ACM 334 (1973).
Goetz, Software Protection (Readers'Report), Bus. WEEK, Nov. 16,
1968, at 4.
Goldberg, Legal Protection of EDP Software, 18 DATAMATION, May 1972, at 66, reprinted in 5 L. & COMPUTER TECH. 97 (July-Aug. 1972).
Gonda, Legal Protection for Computer Programs: Patents and
Copy-right, 8 COMPUTER J. 293 (1966).
Hamlin, Computer Programs Are Patentable, 7 COM. ACM 581 (1964). Hanlow, Britisher Views Trademark, Copyright As Best Software
Pro-gram Protection, Computerworld, Mar. 8, 1972, at 15, col. 1. Hauptman, Joint Inventorship of Computers, 7 COM. ACM 579 (1964). Hirsch, CCPA Reconsiders Patent Decision and Prater and Wei Wait 'Er
and Pray, 15 DATAMATION, Apr. 1969, at 174.
Hirsch, The Patent Office Examines Software: Guidelines Get Graded Down, 12 DATAMATION, Nov. 1966, at 79.
Hirsch, Software Patent Future Murky Despite Recent Court Decision, 15 DATAMATION, Jan. 1969, at 78.
Huggins, Software 'Methods' Patentable, U.S. Patent Appeals Court Rules, Computerworld, Mar. 11, 1970, at 1, col. 2.
Jacobs, Legal Protection for Computer Programs, 8 COMPUTER J. 290 (1966).
Jacobs, Patent Protection of Computer Programs, 7 COM. ACM 583
(1964), reprinted in 47 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'y 6 (1965).
Jacobs, Patents for Software Inventions-The Supreme Court's Com-puter Programming Decision, 16 COM. ACM 586 (1973).
Jones, A Time to Assume Responsibility, 13 DATAMATION, Sep. 1967, at 160.
Jones, Patent Guidelines Make Programmers Second Class Citizens, Jones Says, Computerworld, Nov. 13, 1968, at 4, col. 3.
Jones, Programs and Software Should Be Patentable-Statement Sub-mitted February 1, 1968, to the Senate Committee on Patents and
Copyrights, 17 COMPUTERS & AUTOMATION, Mar. 1968, at 11.
Kates, Computer Patent Disclosures, 7 COM. ACM 578 (1964).
Kaufman, Computer Patent Battle Goes From Court to Congress, 210
IRON AGE, Nov. 30, 1972, at 45.
Kayton, Should Computer Software Have Patent Protection?, 76 CHEM. ENG'R, Feb. 24, 1969, at 52.
Kurtz, Patents and Data Processing, 6 DATA PROCESSING MAGAZINE,
Nov. 1964, at 9.
Lattes, The European Scene, in BRITISH COMPUTER SOC'Y, PROC. OF CONF.
ON SOFTWARE PROTECTION 34 (1969).
Laughton, The Legal Background in the U.K., in BRITISH COMPUTER
SOC'Y, PROC. OF CONF. ON SOFTWARE PROTECTION 12 (1969).
Leavitt, Computer Program Patented As An Apparatus, Com-puterworld, Oct. 9, 1974, at 1, col. 2.
Lundell, Patent Decision Leaves Uncertainty-Legislative Action Planned, Computerworld, Dec. 6, 1972, at 47, col. 2.
Lundell, Supreme Court Rules Against Program Patent, Com-puterworld, Nov. 29, 1972, at 1, col. 3.
McClaskey, Praternity, 15 DATAMATION, Mar. 1969, at 13.
McOustra, Legal Protection for Computer Programs (Report of the Law Panel on Legal Protection for Computer Programs, Third IFIP
Congress, May 27, 1965), 8 COMPUTER J. 289 (1966).
McOustra, Software: Copyright and Other Kinds of Control, 8 THE
COMPUTER BULL. 96 (1964).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Milgrim, Software, Carfare and Benson, 19 DATAMATION, Apr. 1973, at 75, reprinted in 13 JuRiMETRIcs J. 240 (1973).
MINISTRY INT'L TRADE & INDuS., A Registration and Certification Type of System to Protect Computer Programs, reprinted in 4 R. BIGELOW, COMPUTER L. SERV.
§
9-4, art. 3.Pantages, The Problems of Packaged Programs-AMA Conference Re-port, 14 DATAMATION, Apr. 1968, at 75.
Pfeffer, Ferguson's Patent Idea Attacked as Old Technique, Com-puterworld, Mar. 12, 1969, at 8, col. 3.
Pfeffer, New Software Patent Called Unconstitutional, Com-puterworld, May 14, 1969, at 8, col. 3.
Puckett, Protecting Computer Programs, 13 DATAMATION, Nov. 1967, at 55.
Rackman & Popper, The Case for Patenting Software, ELECTRONICS,
July 7, 1969, at 96.
Reynolds, Software Protection and Software Sale, 9 DATA PROCESSING
MAGAZINE, May 1967, at 50.
Rosen, The Processright: A Negative Opinion, 2 MODERN DATA, Oct. 1969, at 92.
Scarletta, Legal Ramifications of the Computer: Contracts, Patents &
Copyrights, 8 J. DATA MANAGEMENT, Nov. 1970, at 20.
Senhenn, Wanted: A New Law to Protect Computer Program Material, 12 THE COMPUTER BULL. 112 (1968).
Silber, A Hypothetical Interview Between the President of a Computer Software Company and a Patent Attorney Specializing in
Protec-tion of Computer Programs, 19 COMPUTERS & AUTOMATION, Feb.
1970, at 16.
Sizemore, U.S. Seeks Patent Ban on EDP Programming, Electronic News, Mar. 6, 1967, at 30, col. 1.
Smith, What Is Proprietary in Mathematical Programming?-Impres-sions of a Panel Discussion, 4 CoM. ACM 542 (1961).
Smith, Fighter for Computer-Program Patents, N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1968, Sec. III, at 1, col. 1.
Smoot, Development of an International System for Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 19 COM. ACM 171 (1976).
Tanaka, Fee or Free Software, 13 DATAMATION, Oct. 1967, at 205.
Taylor, Court Rules Software Patentable, Electronic News, Aug. 18, 1972, at 1, col. 2.
Titus, Pros and Cons of Patenting Computer Programs (Patent Office Guidelines), 10 COM. ACM 126 (1967).
Titus, Supreme Court Ruling Fails to Settle Issue of Patenting Com-puter Program, 16 CoM. ACM 63 (1973).
Wessel, Some Implications of the Software Decision, 19 DATAMATION,
Feb. 1973, at 166, reprinted in 14 JURIMETRICS J. 110 (1973).
Wessler, Change on Software Patents Urged, Electronic News, May 8, 1967, at 36, col. 1.
Wessler, Patentability: No Decision Yet on Software, Electronic News, Feb. 19, 1968, at 37, col. 1.
Wessler, Program Patent Problem Splits Panelists at FJCC, Electronic News, Nov. 20, 1977, at 36, col. 1.
Witt, Patenting Computer Programs, 13 DATAMATION, Nov. 1967, at 15. Young, Precarious Path to Adequate Legal Protection of Software, 10
DATA MANAGEMENT, Aug. 1972, at 10.
A Hole in the Patent Law, Bus. WEEK, Dec. 2, 1972, at 84.
ADR Receives First Program Patent, 14 DATAMATION, July 1968, at 91. Appeal Court Upsets Ban on Granting Patents for Computer Programs,
Bus. WEEK, Nov. 30, 1968, at 46.
Appeal Warns of 'Thought Control', Computerworld, Jan. 1, 1969, at 1, col. 1.
Automated Computer Flow, N.Y. Times, Oct. 10, 1970, at 33, col. 6. Brooks Bill Author Opposes Software Patents, 12 DATAMATION, Oct.
1966, at 171.
Competition "Discouraged, "Computerworld, Feb. 23, 1972, at 5, col. 1. Computer Patent Backed by Court: U.S. Will Request Review of
Deci-sion on "Software," N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 1968, at 71, col. 5. Computer Programmers Are Not Inventors, 56 NEW SCIENTIST 510
(1972).
Computer Programs Are Held Patentable: An Appellate Court Decides Case Concerning Software, N.Y. Times, Aug. 16, 1969, at 35, col. 4. Computer Program Patent, N.Y. Times, June 12, 1968, at 69, col. 1. Computer Software Unpatentable, N.Y. Times, Oct. 23, 1968, at 59, col.
3.
Computers: Hard Ruling for Software Victory for Hardware, TME, Dec. 4, 1972, at 46.
Court Ruling Said to Favor Patents, Computerworld, Dec. 13, 1972, at 37, col. 1.
Final Round for Software Patents?, 18 DATAMATION, Dec. 1972, at 97. First Patent is Issued for Software; Full Implications Are Not Yet
Known, Computerworld, June 19, 1968, at 1, col. 1.
First Software Patent: Was Program Patented? Or Was It the 'Tech-nique'?, Computerworld, July 3, 1968, at 4, col. 3.
Guidelines Proposed for Program Patents, 12 DATAMATION, Sep. 1966, at 98.
High Court Denies Computer Patent for Programming, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 1972, at 1, col. 5.
IBM: Patents Not Answer to Software Protection, Electronic News, Oct. 30, 1972, at 14, col. 2.
1978] BIBLIOGRAPHY 251
Interest Grows in Pursuit of Software Patents and Copyrights, 12
DATAMATION, June 1966, at 85.
Judge Smith's Patent Ruling: 'Rule of Abrams' Is Challenged, Com-puterworld, Dec. 4, 1968, at 4, col. 3.
Ferguson Talks Hardware to Gain Software Patent, Computerworld, Feb. 19, 1969, at 9, col. 1.
Jones of ADR Testifies in Support of Software Patents, 11 CoM. ACM 210 (1968).
Landmark Patent Granted, N.Y. Times, Jan. 2, 1971, at 26, col. 4. Landmark Software Case: Court Overrules Patent Office; Qualifies
'Mental Processes' Ban, Computerworld, Dec. 4, 1968, at 1, col. 1. LBJ Unit Nixes Patents on Programs, 14 Bus. AUTOMATION, Feb. 1972,
at 72.
Legal Protection of Computer Software, Panel Report, 2 PRoc. IFIP
CONGRESS 532 (1965).
Mainframe Makers Hail High Court Rule, Electronic News, Nov. 27, 1972, at 28, col. 4.
Operation of Loaded Computer Is Patentable: But Not Software Itself, Computerworld, Aug. 27, 1969, at 1, col. 1.
Patent Attorney Sees Need to Revise IBM Proposal, 16 DATAMATION,
Mar. 1970, at 154.
Patent Bill Panics Programmers, 13 DATAMATION, June 1967, at 93. Patent Decision in Trouble Following Judge's Death, Computerworld,
Dec. 11, 1968, at 2, col. 4.
Patent Lag in Software Vexing Firms, Electronic News, Apr. 29, 1968, at 62, col. 1.
Patent Office Changes Stand on Program Ban, 14 DATAMATION, Mar. 1968, at 119.
Patent Office Is Ruffled by First Software Patent, Computerworld, June 26, 1968, at 3, col. 3.
Patent Office Now Says: Software Patent Applications Welcome, Com-puterworld, Oct. 15, 1969, at 1, col. 1.
Patent Office Publishes Software Patent Guide, Computerworld, Oct. 30, 1968, at 1, col. 3.
Patent Office Reversing Stand, N.Y. Times, Oct. 9, 1969, at 69, col. 2. Patent Official Calls for Software Protection Study, Computerworld,
Aug. 27, 1969, at 2, col. 1.
Patent Ruling Hinged on Definition of 'Process', Computerworld, Dec. 11, 1968, at 27, col. 1.
Patents Issued for Software, Electronic News, Dec. 10, 1973, at 44, col. 5.
The Prater & Wei Rehearing Ended As Many People Showed Concern, Computerworld, Mar. 19, 1969, at 1, col. 4.
Programmatics Makes First Patented Software Available, Com-puterworld, Mar. 19, 1969, at 14, col. 3.
Programmers Get the Nod, Bus. WEEK, Aug. 23, 1969, at 34.
Programmers Win the Patent Battle, Computerworld, Apr. 29, 1970, at 11, col. 4.
Proposed Patent Changes Exclude Computer Programs, 13 DATAMA-TION, Apr. 1967, at 85.
Protection of Computer Programs-Bibliography, 11 COM. ACM 67 (1968).
Registration System Called Inadequate, Computerworld, Mar. 26, 1969, at 1, col. 1.
Registration Would Protect Program But Not Concepts, Com-puterworld, Feb. 26, 1969, at 4, col. 3.
Rehearing is Set in Computer Case, N.Y. Times, Jan. 17, 1969, at 43, col. 3.
2nd 'Software' Patent Granted Despite Ban, Computerworld, Feb. 12, 1969, at 1, col. 3.
Software Classification Undertaken As Pilot Project, Computerworld, Nov. 5, 1969, at 2, col. 1.
Software Group Asks Court to Stick by Patent Approval, Electronic News, Dec. 30, 1968, at 6, col. 4.
Software Milestone Approaching, Computerworld, Jan. 28, 1970, at 6, col. 4.
Software: Overruled, 245 ECONOMIST, Nov. 25, 1972, at 114.
Software Patent Confuses Everyone, ELECTRONICS, Sep. 16, 1968, at 33. Software Patent Defended, Computerworld, Jan. 22, 1969, at 1, col. 3. Software Patent Faces Jeopardy, Computerworld, Oct. 13, 1971, at 9,
col. 1.
Software Patent Hot Potato Winds Up in Congress'Lap, 45
ELECTRON-ics, Dec. 4, 1972, at 39.
Software Patent Issue Moves to Congress, 50 CHEM. & ENG'R NEWS, Dec. 4, 1972, at 10, col. 2.
Software Patent Raises Questions, Computerworld, June 19, 1968, at 2, col. 1.
Software Patentability Triggers Talk, Action at SJCC, 13 DATAMATION,
May 1967, at 19.
Software Patents-A New Push, 12 DATA PROCESSING MAGAZINE, June 1970, at 16.
Software-Where Now?, Computerworld, Dec. 6, 1972, at 10, col. 1. Software Writing Called 5 % Inspiration and 95 % Perspiration by IBM
Attorney, Computerworld, Aug. 6, 1969, at 7, col. 1.
That Software Patent: Patent Office's Long History Affects Your Rights Today, Computerworld, July 24, 1968, at 4, col. 3.
1978] BIBLIOGRAPHY 253
Two Software Groups Unite in Legal Fight for Program Patents, Com-puterworld, Apr. 12, 1972, at 29, col. 2.
U.S. Court Finds Softwear (sic) Patentable in Landmark Case, Elec-tronic News, Nov. 25, 1968, at 2, col. 1.
U.S. Patent Court to Rehear Software Issue, N.Y. Times, Mar. 1, 1969, at 43, col. 1.
Did you find this
issue of interest?
If so, there are several things you .can do:SUBSCRIBE. The JOURNAL receives no subsidies from a law
school or other organization. Except for a small amount of adver-tising, the total cost of the JOURNAL must be borne by subscrip-tions and single issue sales. If you would like to subscribe, please use one of the reply cards at the back of this issue. If the reply cards have been removed, please use the Order Form on the fac-ing page.
ADVERTISE. If your company provides goods or services to the computer industry or legal profession, you should consider adver-tising in the JOURNAL. By advertising in the JOURNAL, not only will you reach those persons and institutions most likely to use your goods or services, you will also be providing valuable financial support to the JOURNAL. Advertising rate information can be ob-tained by returning the Order Form on the facing page, or by sending an inquiry on your company's letterhead.
PUBLICIZE. The JOURNAL depends to a large extent on "word-of-mouth" advertising. If you know of someone who might be inter-ested in the JOURNAL, please tell him or her about the JOURNAL. If you would prefer, simply fill out one of the attached reply cards and the JOURNAL will send information directly to that individual.
CRITICIZE. The editors of the JOURNAL invite feedback from readers and users. If you have any comments, criticisms or sug-gestions, please write directly to Michael D. Scott, Editor-in-chief, Computer/Law Journal, 675 South Westmoreland Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.
