Editing List of software patents (section)

=== Notable due to misconception ===
*{{Cite patent|country=US|number=2006015812|status=application}} {{En dash}} ''Emoticon keyboard button patent application.''
*{{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1784745|status=application}}
:Early in 2006, rumours circulated on the Internet that [[Cingular Wireless]] had patented the [[emoticon]] and, in particular, had patented the concept of using emoticons on mobile phones.<ref>{{Cite web
|url=http://www.cellular-news.com/story/15792.php
|title=Cingular Patenting the Emoticon :(
|publisher=Cellular-news
|accessdate=2007-04-21}}</ref> This resulted in a great deal of anger directed at the US Patent Office that such patents should never have been granted.<ref>{{Cite web
|url=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/1815259
|title=Cingular Patents the Emoticon?
|date=26 January 2006
|publisher=[[Slashdot]]
|accessdate=2007-04-21}}</ref> Ultimately, it was pointed out that it was only a published patent application, not a granted patent, and that the claims of the patent application actually related to a mobile phone with a dedicated button for inserting emoticons.<ref>{{Cite web
|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/cingular_smiley_mail
|title=Cingular emoticon grab not so serious :-) say experts
|publisher=[[The Register]]
|accessdate=2007-04-21}}</ref>
:This patent application is currently being examined by the US patent office. All of the originally filed claims were rejected on 22 February 2007 as being known or obvious, although the rejection was not final.<ref>[http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair The USPTO "Public PAIR" system] provides current status information for this US application under publication number "2006-0015812".</ref> Examination of the corresponding European patent application also suggested that the claims lacked an inventive step, and the application lapsed in 2010.<ref>{{EPO Register|appno=05772941|patno=1784745}}</ref>
* {{Cite patent|country=US|number=D599372}}
:This [[design patent]] was granted to [[Google]] on 1 September 2009 for the simple and clean appearance of their homepage from five years earlier.<ref name="NYTGoogleDesign">{{cite news| url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/patently_google_v3bGGmxgNrvP5lW2elOdSJ | work=New York Post | title=Patently Google | first=Paul | last=Tharp | date=2009-09-03}}</ref> Referred to in the media as a [[patent]], it received criticism for not being as original as Google's web search technology<ref name="NYTGoogleDesign" /> and was held up as evidence that the US patent system was broken.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/03/uspto-neglects-to-hit-the-obvious-button-on-googles-newest-pa/ |title=USPTO neglects to hit the "obvious" button on Google's newest patent |website=www.downloadsquad.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090905133816/http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/03/uspto-neglects-to-hit-the-obvious-button-on-googles-newest-pa/ |archive-date=2009-09-05}}</ref> The New York Post said that Google now had the right to sue anyone who used a similarly no-frills website.<ref name="NYTGoogleDesign" /> However, a "design patent" is not the same as a "patent" (sometimes referred to as a "utility patent") since it provides only limited protection for ornamental appearance.<ref name="POGoogleDesign">{{Cite web|url=https://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/googles-patent-on-its-googlecom-home-page.html|title=Googleâs Patent on its GOOGLE.COM Home Page|website=Patently-O}}</ref> Design patents are typically hard to infringe<ref name="RegGoogleDesign">{{cite web| url = https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/google_patents_its_home_page/| title = Google patents (2004) home page • The Register| website = [[The Register]]}}</ref> and even Google's own homepage at the time the design patent was granted was almost certainly different enough from the design patent that it did not infringe it.<ref name="POGoogleDesign" /><ref name="RegGoogleDesign" />