View source for OpenOntologyRepository IPR/Discussion

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/OOR-Logo/OOR_banner_sm.png 

= [[OpenOntologyRepository_IPR]] Policy and Issues Discussion  =

== ... and workspace for the Joint [[OOR]]-[[Ontolog]]-[[NCBO]]-[[CC]]-[[IAOA]]-[[OASIS]] OOR-IPR mini-series preparation  ==

== Background  ==

As far as the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) Initiative is concerned, we left off (at the end of the OntologySummit2008) with a vision and consensus that: 

* OOR will be an open global collaboration (like the Apache Project), 
* the OOR community will collaborate to develop a federated infrastructure of persistent open registries, repositories and associated services, for ontologies, 
* contributions of the OOR community will include tools (technology) and content 
** tools and technology so contributed shall carry an open source technology license, 
** content (essentially ontologies) contributed shall be published under some open content license 
* the OOR team will stand up at least one instance of the OOR, and 
* while the OOR technology and content will be open, proprietary ontologies and ontology repositories should also be able to connect to and interoperate with it. 

We also agreed, as a community, that we will defer discussion on specifics of the IPR issues (what licenses to
standardize on, what does that mean, etc.) until we are further down the road with the work. ...''(that was end April 2008)'' 

We recognize that this is time to revisit the OOR-IPR issues and has identified that one of the critical tasks at hand is for the OOR team is to clarify IPR issues related to Ontology & OOR and adopt a consensus IPR policy for OOR contributions. 

To this end, an OOR-IPR mini-series of virtual events are being organized: 

* '''2010_09_09 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-1: an exposition on relevant IPR regimes - Keynote speaker: [[GeorgeStrawn|George Strawn]] - Chair: [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] - Panelists: [[JamieClark]], [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_09 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

* '''2010_09_16 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-2: what are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories (and ontologies in general)? - Chair: Mark Musen - Panelists: [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]], [[AlanRector|Alan Rector]], [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]], [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_16 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

* '''2010_09_30 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-3: discussion and consensus on licensing arrangements for the OOR Initiative, and positions we might take on related IPR issues - chair: [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] - Panelists: [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]], [[JamieClark]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_30 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

== OOR-IPR mini-series objective  ==

This "OOR-IPR mini-series" will, hopefully, start a dialog among the global ontology community, to specifically address IPR issues relating to the "open ontology repository (OOR)" initiative. The discussion will, invariably, touch upon IPR issues pertaining to ontology in general as well. 

This mini-series is jointly organized by the OOR-team, the Ontolog-community, NCBO (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology), CC (Creative Commons), IAOA (the International Association for Ontology and its Applications) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards). 

Given the complexity of the issues involved, one can look as this mini-series to merely be the beginning of a quest, by the collaborating parties and their communities, to fully understand the issues, and to get themselves into a position to address them. 

In the opening session, we have invited some of the top experts in open IPR to give us an exposition on the IPR landscape and the state of relevant IPR regimes. 

As a community, I trust we will, over the course of this mini-series and subsequent actions and events, address a very important set of issues, that really have to be cleared, before one can stand up effective open ontology repositories, and the world can get the most out of the potentials in science & technology of ontology and semantics. 

----

== (draft) consensus IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative  ==

Our intent is to make the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) software and system, as well as the content hosted in the open public instance of the OOR (repository) that this OOR-team will operate and maintain, to be as free, open, and unencumbered by IPR restrictions as we possibly can, so as to allow users of the software, system, and ontology content, the maximum freedom and flexibility. As such, we shall stipulate that ... 

* software codes contributed to the OOR effort has to carry the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]). 
** the above will be the default position, unless it is otherwise mutually agreed in writing, between an authorized representative of the OOR team and the contributor. Such exception, even if agreed upon, needs to bind the contributing software codes to a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license, such as (included, but not limited to) the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html MIT License], the [http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License version 2.0] or the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Mozilla Public License 1.1] (MPL); 
** it is, of course, also acceptable if the software contribution in question is in the public domain 
** Software libraries, under either "gift" or "reciprocal" software licenses, may also be used in the OOR software or system. 

* Any content contribution to OOR should specify an IPR license, as part of the OOR "gatekeeping" requirements, which will be maintained in the content contribution metadata. Each repository using the OOR software can specify its own set of acceptable IPR content licenses. 

* That content (essentially ontologies or other "knowledge organizational structures (KOS's)") '''contributed to the open public instance of OOR''' (which the OOR team will operate and maintain) will need to be licensed under either one of the following: 
** the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]), or 
** the "attribution only" Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0 or its successor), or 
** the content being contributed is in the public domain. 

== (draft) Additional Community Action  ==

As a joint community co-organizing this effort, we seek support and (optional) endorsements by individual members of the communities involved on the following: 

* We hypothesize that ontology are fundamental to enabling interoperability and should be freely available for its full potential to be realized for the good of all. We, therefore, support the position that ontology should not be patentable. This joint-community will provide the platform for the thorough analysis and debate to validate that hypothesis, build out a strong case to support our position, which will then enable us to adequately inform the process that will be making the official ruling in this matter. 

* We will encourage those members of our community who believe that software patents ( [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2GOZ ref.] ) will discourage, rather than encourage, innovation, to actively participate in the public debate and in collective efforts that advocate the position that software should not be patentable. 

----

This was our position towards the end of the three Sep-2010 OOR-IPR mini-series sessions. It has since been overtaken by the above "Draft Consensus OOR IPR Policy" which will be presented for adopted by the community. (The positions below are maintained for archival and reference purposes.) 

== ''(Now obsolete)'' Candidate IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative  ==

* That software contributions to the OOR effort has to carry a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license. If one is not specified by the contributor, the software license will default to the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]). 
** compatible open-source licenses include (but not limited to) the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html MIT License], [http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License version 2.0], [http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Mozilla Public License 1.1] (MPL), and [http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php Eclipse Public License version 1.0] (EPL); 
** it is also acceptable if the software contribution in question is in the public domain 

* Any content contribution to OOR should specify an IPR license, as part of the OOR "gatekeeping" requirements, which will be maintained in the content contribution metadata. Each repository using the OOR software can specify its own set of acceptable IPR content licenses. 

* That content (essentially ontologies or other "knowledge organizational structures (KOS's)") '''contributed to the open public instance of OOR''' (which the OOR team will operate) will either one of the following: 
** a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license. If one is not specified by the contributor, the software license will default to the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]). 
*** compatible open-source licenses include (but not limited to) the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html MIT License], [http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License version 2.0], [http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Mozilla Public License 1.1] (MPL), and [http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php Eclipse Public License version 1.0] (EPL), OR 
** a Creative Commons Attribution only License (CC BY 3.0 or its successor). 
** it is also acceptable if the content contribution in question is in the public domain 

== ''(Now obsolete)'' Candidate Position Statements that we will make  ==

'''(as a joint community co-organizing this effort) which we will seek (optional) endorsements by individual members of the communities involved.''' 

* we believe ontologies are fundamental to enabling interoperability, and therefore support the position that ontology should not be patentable. 

* we also believe that patents covering software will discourage, rather than encourage, innovation, and therefore support the position that software should not be patentable. 

----

== Input and Discussion  ==

* 2010.08.26 - from [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] 

: Given the fundamental nature of ontologies (Upper Ontologies or Foundational Ontologies), I trust we should consider the very notion of whether or not ontologies (or, at least, certain ontologies) should be given IPR protection ... along the same lines of thinking as: 

:: o  the fact that no one can copyright the alphabets or book titles 
:: o  the fact that no one is allowed to patent algorithms, and the ongoing debate about software patents or whether genes can be patented 

* 2010.08.25 - [[IAOA]] confirms its participation as a co-organizer of the OOR-IPR mini-series - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-general/2010-08/msg00000.html 

: [[IAOA]] has decided to join the [[OOR]]-team, the [[Ontolog]] community, [[NCBO]] (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology) and Creative Commons ([[CC]]), and participate as co-organizer for the mini-series on "Intellectual properties Rights (IPR) issues relating to the OOR Initiative". The mini-series will start in September 2010. 

* 2010.08.17 - From [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]] (after an telecon with [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] on the preparation for the OOR-IPR mini-series) 

: Peter - we are confirmed that we can list [[CC]] as part of the conveners. Looking forward to working with you. 

* 2010.05.20 - from [[NigamShah|Nigam Shah]] to [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]]: 

: Hope your grant flurry has passed. I wanted to pick up on our thread again .. esp the item 1 below. [[BioPortal]] is being adopted by several communities (e.g. the Open Ontology Repository community) and there is an active debate on how to handle IP for the contents of a particular installation. The discussions have taken the form of a "Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO IPR mini-series", comprising 3 sessions. We would love to get your input while we try an figure out the IP issues around ontology content. ... Peter Yim, cc'ed, is the lead organizer for the mini-series and can answer further questions about it. 

* 2010.05.20 - from [[NigamShah|Nigam Shah]] (NCBO) to [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]]: 

: (follow up from Sage congress discussion) Things we'd like your advice on: 

:  1 - how to handle the intricacies of open licensing on "BioPortal", which contains code we write, code from public libraries, ontology content that others submit as well as content we license from NLM. 

:  2 - how best to support the shared names effort led by Science Commons. 

* 2010.05.06 - From [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] to [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]] ref. the OOR-IPR writeup 

: ... rather than dismissing Technology IPR as being something
we won't be talking able, I'd suggest we need that conversation,
partly to educate the community on the options, and partly to
facilitate the OOR community to make a conscious decision on the
selection of (a) technology license(s) for the OOR initiative. 

* 2010.05.06 - from [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]] (initially based on a telecon with Dave Rubenson (NCBO) and [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] with modifications based on subsequent discussions) - updated 2010.08.31 

: 1) We are going under the assumption that, similar to software, an
ontology, or ontology module, may be owned, and that this ownership
may be protected under copyright law.  We are also assuming that the
rights of ownership include the ability to distribute some rendering
of an ontology and to have the privileges associated with using the
ontology specified within a license agreement.  This is analogous to
the copyright licensing model widely used for traditional
software-related artifacts.  One of the tenets of the OOR initiative
is to promote and develop the mechanisms required to support the OPEN
distribution of ontologies through federated repositories.  Therefore, Ontology
artifacts contained within such repositories will need to be
associated with an OPEN license to realize this objective.  This model
of open dissemination is analogous to the one employed by Open Source
software community.  However, we believe that there are specific
differences between traditional software artifacts and ontologies that
render existing Open Source licenses ineffective for this purpose.  Licenses promoted
by the Creative Commons may be better suited to for licensing ontology-centric 
artifacts.  However, how the current Creative Commons licenses map to the requirements
of the OOR requires further investigation.  Therefore, one of the
objectives of the IPR panel session is to evaluate existing open
licenses and to make specific recommendations regarding ontology
licensing.  If the panel should find that an appropriate license does
not exist, then the panel will work with one of the existing open
licensing groups to develop a license that is tailored to the needs of
an the OOR objectives.  Note that the potential concern over the
proliferation of open licenses for ontologies will be considered and,
if at all possible, strategies will be developed to help minimize this
concern. 

: 2) The OOR initiative is tasked with the OPEN distribution of
ontologies through federated repositories.  However, the term OPEN
needs to be defined.  There are specific use cases that call for
controlled access to an open ontology repository.  For example, there
may be specific policies that prevent ontology dissemination to
specific jurisdictions.  There have also been use cases presented on
the OOR discussion forum that require controlled access to proprietary
extensions of the OOR.  These use cases suggest that IPR within an OOR
instance, or federation of instances, may vary according to a specific
ontology.  The panel session will consider these differences and make
recommendations on how to manage the variability of rights.  This
will include, but is not limited to, the concerns associated with
integrating ontologies that are released according to different
licenses.  Issues with license compatibility will be specifically
addressed. 

: 3) The federation of OOR instances is expected to be populated with
content from a variety of sources originating from a variety of
jurisdictions.  This raises concern over the provenance of ontology
content being contributed.  A similar concern is currently echoed within the
Open Source software community.  The legal integrity of the OOR could
be undermined if the ownership of contributed content were to be
brought into questions.  This is similar to the concern that arose
Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) claimed that specific contributions made
by IBM to the Linux kernel were actual owned by SCO.  SCO subsequently
approached several Linux end users demanding compensation.  The OOR
IPR panel session will consider this concern and will recommend
mechanisms to help vet the provenance of both software and content 
contributions made to the OOR initiative, thus protecting
the legal integrity of the OOR federation. 

: 4) Ontological engineering is maturing rapidly and best-practices are
emerging to support the construction of ontologies as a collection of
engineered artifacts.  One specific practice is constructing modular
ontologies.  Although this is a practice that the OOR should support,
there are certain IPR concerns that arise.  If we assume that the OOR
will allow ontologies to be contributed according to a multitude of
licenses, how does this impact the licensing of an aggregating
ontology, otherwise known as a derivative work?  Specific issues
include the compatibility and viral nature of certain licenses.  Note
that similar concerns exist within the Open Source software community
and dealing with this issue has become a major challenge.  The OOR IPR
panel session has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons for
the benefit of the ontology community. 

: 5) There are efforts underway to convince standards bodies such as
ISO, IEC, ANSI etc. to adopt ontologies as a means of formally
specifying standards.  The OOR IPR panel session will consider this
possibility and will attempt to structure their recommendations to
facilitate this endeavor. 

: 6) Given the fundamental nature of ontologies (Upper Ontologies or 
Foundational Ontologies), the IPR panel will consider the very notion 
of whether or not ontologies (or, at least, certain ontologies) should 
be given IPR protection ... along the same lines of thinking as: 
:: o  the fact that no one can copyright the alphabets or book titles 
:: o  the fact that no one is allowed to patent algorithms, and the 
ongoing debate about software patents or whether genes can be patented 

: Well, that's all I have for now.  Perhaps we can bounce it back and
forth to flesh the concepts out a bit.  Please let me know what you
think. 

* 2010.04.28 - [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] confirmed his participation in the OOR-IPR mini-series as a panelists and advisor (after a extended telecon with PeterYim) 

* 2010.04.08 - from [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] to [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]]: 

: Thanks, John. I concur, in principle. I think practically all the key
players who are involved in OOR or SIO now are aligned on this.
If we look at the community and their contributions now ... 

: Contributing platform & code: NCBO-Stanford, BBN, NEU, UToronto, CIM3, ... 

: Contributing content: the usual Upper Ontology suspects, federated
content from [[BioPortal]], ... and just getting geared up to enlist other
to contribute domain ontologies and other KOS's. 

: This is a very important conversation, that has to be taken with the
above community (to gain consensus and buy-in) to get to the next
level of detail. Some may already have IPR policies (NCBO?) ... Some
may have constraints and we will have to mitigate. 

: I think the upcoming IPR session and the discussion revolving around
that would provide the right opportunity for us to get things tied
down more concretely. Maybe we do not have a huge urgency to define it
much further now (especially in view of the content contributors, that
are still emerging.) 

: We definitely should talk about it more, at the OOR team meetings,
even before we put the IPR session together. 

* 2010.04.08 - from [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]] to [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]] and [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: 

: Cameron and Peter, ... I believe that Eclipse and Creative Commons are both extremely
important developments, and I suggest that we support both. 

: There are so many different licenses around that I wouldn't
even try to summarize the issues.  But following are some
considerations: 

:  1. The content contained in the OOR should be contributed for
free use by anyone for any purpose.  I believe that the
Creative Commons license allows such use, provided that
the users cite the original copyright holder. 

:  2. The tools should be available under a license that allows
free use and modification of any software for any purpose,
private or commercial.  There are many different licenses
that support such use, and I'd leave it to the lawyers to
decide which one is best. 

:  3. The overwhelming majority of software on [[SourceForge|Source Forge]] is
effectively dead (or in IBM's euphemism, functionally
stabilized).  A few people other than the original
contributor may have downloaded the software, but most
of it languishes for years without any updates by anyone. 

:  4. There are a few highly successful open source projects
(e.g., Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Open Office), but most
of the development on those projects is limited to a
small core of insiders, which gets most of its support
from businesses and other organizations that actively
use that technology. 

:  5. Eclipse is one of the few highly successful open source
projects that is widely used, developed, and extended
by a wide range of developers other than the original
sponsors.  It is also widely accepted by the IT industry
as a mainstream development platform. 

:  6. Endorsement by the Eclipse Foundation would ensure that
the SIO project is taken seriously by the IT industry. 

: For these reasons, I believe that we should definitely make
the SIO software compatible with Eclipse.  I think that we
should also have a stand-alone version that does not require
Eclipse, since many users wouldn't want to and shouldn't be
required to download the entire Eclipse platform just to
use the OOR and supporting tools. 

: I am not familiar with the policies of the Eclipse Foundation,
but if Cameron or others have contacts with them, I would
encourage inquiries about some kind of collaboration. 

* 2010.04.07 - [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] to [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]]: 

: Cameron, ... Thank you for the earlier IPR-related post and the suggestions. 

: 1.  I think this should be an OOR rather than a SIO conversation. (May
I, therefore, suggest using the [oor-forum] list.) 

: 2.  A lot of discussion has been had (as [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]] put it, during the
[[OntologySummit2008|Ontology Summit 2008]] presentations: "everyone had to have a slide about
"open"). 

: 3.  The general direction has been gravitating (similar to your
suggestions) toward an Apache type ("academic", rather than
"reciprocal") open source license for the tools and platform, and for
a Creative Commons license for the content (i.e. ontologies,
vocabularies, etc.) ... and nothing has been locked in concrete ...
which needs to be done, eventually, when we get into the next level of
granularity in terms of licensing. 

: 4.  We also need to address whether to register them, point to to
them, and how to federate with non-open content,  etc. 

: 5.  As mentioned in response to your earlier message today, the OOR
team has an IPR session planned. ... 

* 2010.04.07 - [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]]: 

: Last December I explored the possibility of having the Eclipse Foundation steward a project for an  Ontology Development Environment(ODE).  There are pros and cons with doing this, but in the end I think that the pros may out way the cons in the context of the SIO project.  I'm sending this email off-list as  I don't want to distract the focus of the SIO discussion unnecessarily, but please feel free to bring up the subject on the list if you think it's appropriate.  I can contact Donald Smith, Director of Ecosystem Development for the Eclipse Foundation, to see what's involved if there is support for the idea. 

----

== References and Resources  ==

* [[OpenOntologyRepository]] initiative - homepage 

* About the OOR effort 
** 2010_04_29 - [[OntologySummit2008_Communique]] 
** 2010_04_29 - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008/FaceToFaceAgenda#nid1BLS Presentation on OOR at the Ontology Summit 2008] 
** 2010_06_24 - [[OpenOntologyRepository|Presentation on OOR at the SemTech2010 Conference]] 

* "Open Source Definition" by [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] - http://www.opensource.org/osd.html 

* Creative Commons Licenses (3.0) - http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses 

* "What is Science Commons?" by [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]] - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5695 

* Open Source Licensing: Academic v. Reciprocal - ref. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/os-license2/ 

* IPR Policy of the Eclipse Project - http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf 
** EPL (Eclipse Public License) and EDL (Eclipse Distribution License) - ref. http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ 

* Open Source Licenses - ref. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category - ref. pertinent licenses: 
** Apache License (v2) - http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml 
** MPL (Mozilla Public License) - http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ 
** BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) - ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses 
** GPLv2 (GNU General Public License, version 2) - see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html 
** GPLv3 (GNU General Public License, version 3 - 29 June 2007 (current)) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html 
** LGPL (GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License) - ref. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php 
** AGPL (GNU Affero General Public License) - ref. http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html 
** Examples: 
*** Apache Software: IPR Registry - http://archive.gria.org/docs/ogsadai/1.0/docs/IPR-registry.html 

* OASIS IPR Policy - http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php 

* on Software Patents, ... etc. 
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent 
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate 
** "[http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Are Software Patents Evil?]" by Paul Graham / Mar. 2006 
** "[http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8105026/ Abolishing software patents would unleash more innovation]" by Vivek Wadhwa / Aug 9, 2010. 

* First-to-invent v. first-to-file patent regime - ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent 

* (US) Patent Reform Act of 2010: An Overview - http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/patent-reform-act-of-2010-an-overview.html 

[[Category:OOR]]