Bibliography

1

G. Aharonian.
Patent examination system is intellectually corrupt.
http://www.bustpatents.com/corrupt.htm, May 2000.

2

J.R. Allison and E. H. Tiller.
Internet business method patents.
In W. M. Cohen and S. A. Merrill, editors, Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, pages 259-284. National Research Council, Washington, National Academies Press, 2003.

3

ANSI.
http://www.fortran.com/F77_std/f77_std.html, 1977.
ANSI Standard X3.9-1978 and ISO 1539-1980.

4

R. Bakels, 2005.
Private Communication.

5

R. Bakels and P.B. Hugenholtz.
The patentability of computer programmes: Discussion of European level legislation in the field of patents for software.
Technical report, European Parliament, 2002.

6

J. A. Bergstra, J. Heering, and P. Klint, editors.
Algebraic Specification.
ACM Press/Addison-Wesley, 1989.

7

J.A. Bergstra, J. Heering, and P. Klint.
Module algebra.
Journal of the ACM, 37(2):335-372, 1990.

8

J.A. Bergstra and P. Klint.
The discrete time ToolBus - a software coordination architecture.
Science of Computer Programming, 31(2-3):205-229, July 1998.

9

J.A. Bergstra and M.E. Loots.
Program algebra for sequential code.
Journal of logic and algebraic programming, 51(2):125-156, 2002.

10

J.A. Bergstra and S.F.M. van Vlijmen.
Theoretische software engineering, kenmerken-faseringen-classificaties, volume XXVIII of Questiones Infinitae.
Zeno instituut voor Filosofie (Leiden-Utrecht), 1998.
(In Dutch).

11

J. Bessen and R.M. Hunt.
An empirical look at software patents.
Economics Research Working Paper 03-17/R, Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, March 2004.

12

M.G.J. van den Brand, A. van Deursen, J. Heering, H.A. de Jong, M. de Jonge, T. Kuipers, P. Klint, L. Moonen, P.A. Olivier, J. Scheerder, J.J. Vinju, E. Visser, and J. Visser.
The ASF+SDF Meta-Environment: a Component-Based Language Development Environment.
In R. Wilhelm, editor, Compiler Construction (CC '01), volume 2027 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 365-370. Springer-Verlag, 2001.

13

Software patents: the choice is yours.
http://www.softwarepatenten.be/conferenties/september03, September 17, 2003.
Brussels.

14

Digital Equipment Corporation.
Processor Handbook PDP11/45, 1974.

15

E.W. Dijkstra.
A note on two problems in connexion with graphs.
Numerische Mathematik, 1:269-271, 1959.

16

ECMA International.
C# Language Specification, 2nd edition, December 2002.
ECMA-334, http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm.

17

J. Gosling, B. Joy, and G. Steele.
The Java Language Specification.
Addison-Wesley, 1996.

18

J. Halbersztadt.
Remarks on the patentability of computer software - History, Status, Developments.
http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2001/ linuxtag/jh/swplxtg017jh.en.pdf, April 2001.

19

B. H. Hall.
Innovation and market value.
In R. Barrell, G. Mason, and M. O'Mahoney, editors, Productivity, Innovation and Economic Performance, pages 177-198. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

20

B.W. Kernighan and D.M. Ritchie.
The C Programming Language.
Prentice-Hall, 1978.

21

P. Klint.
How understanding and restructuring differ from compiling--a rewriting perspective.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC03), pages 2-12. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.

22

P. Klint.
Een patentoplossing? Nee, dank U!
I/O Informaticaonderzoek, 1(2):3, September 2004.
(In Dutch), http://www.informaticaplatform.nl/images/uploaded/magazine_2004_12_IO2totaal.pdf.

23

D. Knuth.
Letter to the US patent office.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt, September 2003.

24

C. Lening and J.R. Cavicchi.
Patent searching glossary.
Technical report, Franklin Pierce Law Centre, 2003.
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/patent_searching_glossary.pdf.

25

P.E. Merrell, 2005.
Private Communication.

26

M. Murphy.
Getty and corbis win image patent dispute.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/227728_gettycorbis09.html, June 2005.

27

J. Park.
Evolution of industry knowledge in the public domain: Prior art searching for software patents.
SCRIPT-ed, 2(1), 2005.
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-1/park.asp.

28

R. Plotkin.
From idea to action: toward a unified theory of software and the law.
International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 17(3), November 2003.

29

R. Plotkin.
Computer programming and the automation of invention: a case for software patent reform.
Working Paper Series, Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper 04-16, Boston University School of Law, 2004.

30

P. Samuelson.
Should program algorithms be patented?
Communications of the ACM, 33(8):23-27, 1990.

31

30 European Computer Scientists.
Petition to the european parliament on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
CEPIS UPGRADE The European Journal for the Information Professional, IV(3):24-25, June 2003.
http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2003/3/upgrade-vIV-3.html.

32

Software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK).
http://www.swebok.org, 2004.

33

J.D. Ullman.
Ordinary skill in the art.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/pub/focs00.html, November 2000.

34

United States Code (USC).
Title 35, Section 101: Inventions patentable.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=35&sec=101, January 22 2002.

35

H. van Vliet.
Software Engineering: Principles and Practice.
Wiley, second edition, 2000.

36

World Trade Organization (WTO).
Trips: Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual propery rights, Section 5, Article 27: Patentable Subject Matter.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm.