tablets and other portable all-purpose mobile computing devices, smart TVs, or voice assistant devices to allow the device to interoperate with or to remove software applications (“jailbreaking”). No oppositions were filed against readoption of this exemption, and Consumer Reports submitted a comment in support of the renewal petition. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption, and that petitioners have personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption. For example, regarding smart TVs specifically, the Software Freedom Conservancy (“SFC”) asserted that it has “reviewed the policies and product offerings of major Smart TV manufacturers (Sony, LG, Samsung, etc.) and they are substantially the same as those examined during the earlier rulemaking process.”[1] The petitions stated that, absent an exemption, TPMs applied to the enumerated products would have an adverse effect on noninfringing uses, such as being able to install third-party applications on a smartphone or download third-party software on a smart TV to enable interoperability. This existing exemption serves as the baseline in assessing whether to recommend any expansions in Class 11.
7. Computer Programs—Repair of Motorized Land Vehicles[2]
Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs that control motorized land vehicles, including farm equipment, for purposes of diagnosis, repair, or modification of a vehicle function. The Office did not receive meaningful opposition to readoption of this exemption, and Consumer Reports submitted a comment in support of the renewal petition. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption. For example, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (“MEMA”) stated that over the past three years, its membership “has seen firsthand that the exemption is helping protect consumer choice and a competitive market, while mitigating risks to intellectual property and vehicle safety.”[3] Similarly, the Auto Care Association (“ACA”) stated that “[u]nless this exemption is renewed, the software measures manufacturers deploy for the purpose of controlling access to vehicle software will prevent Auto Care members from lawfully assisting consumers in the maintenance, repair, and upgrade of their vehicles.”[4] The petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption; each either represents or gathered information from individuals or businesses that perform vehicle service and repair. This existing exemption, as well as the existing exemption pertaining to repair of smartphones, home appliances, and home systems, serve as the baseline in assessing whether to recommend any expansions in Class 12.
8. Computer Programs—Repair of Smartphones, Home Appliances, and Home Systems[5]
Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs that control smartphones, home appliances, or home systems, for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of the device or system. The Office did not receive meaningful opposition to readoption of this exemption, and Consumer Reports submitted a comment in support of the renewal petition. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), the Repair Association, and iFixit asserted that “[m]anufacturers of these devices continue to implement [TPMs] that inhibit lawful repairs, maintenance, and diagnostics, and they show no sign of changing course.”[6] This existing exemption, as well as the existing exemption pertaining to repair of motorized land vehicles, serve as the baseline in assessing whether to recommend any expansions in Class 12.
9. Computer Programs—Security Research[7]
Multiple organizations and security researchers petitioned to renew the exemption permitting circumvention for purposes of good-faith security research. No oppositions were filed against readoption of this exemption, and Consumer Reports submitted a comment in support of the renewal petition. The petitioners demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption, as well as personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption. For example, J. Alex Halderman, the Center for Democracy and Technology (“CDT”), and the U.S. Technology Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”) highlighted the need to find and detect vulnerabilities in voting machines and other election systems in response to increasing aggressiveness on the part of threat actors, including other nation states.[8] MEMA stated that its membership “experienced firsthand that the exemption is helping encourage innovation in the automotive industry while mitigating risks to intellectual property and vehicle safety,” and opined that the current exemption strikes an “appropriate balance.”[9] This existing exemption serves as the baseline in assessing whether to recommend any expansions in Class 13.
10. Computer Programs—Software Preservation[10]
The Software Preservation Network (“SPN”) and LCA petitioned to renew the exemption for computer programs, other than video games, for the preservation of computer programs and computer program-dependent materials by libraries, archives, and museums. No oppositions were filed against readoption of this exemption. The petition stated that libraries, archives, and museums continue to need the exemption to preserve and curate software and materials dependent on software. For example, the petition explained that researchers at the University of Virginia designed a project in order to access a collection of drawings and plans from a local Charlottesville architecture firm, and that without the exemption, the outdated Computer Aided Design software used to create many of the designs “may have remained inaccessible to researchers, rendering the designs themselves inaccessible, too.”[11] In addition, petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption through past participation in the section 1201 triennial rulemaking relating to access controls on software, and/or representing major library associations with members who have relied on this exemption. This existing
- ↑ SFC Jailbreaking Renewal Pet. at 3.
- ↑ The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this class, including citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can be found in the Register’s Recommendation at IV.G.
- ↑ MEMA Vehicle Repair Renewal Pet. at 3.
- ↑ ACA Vehicle Repair Renewal Pet. at 3.
- ↑ The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this class, including citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can be found in the Register’s Recommendation at IV.H.
- ↑ EFF Device Repair Renewal Pet. at 3; EFF, Repair Ass’n & iFixit Device Repair Renewal Pet. at 3.
- ↑ The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this class, including citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can be found in the Register’s Recommendation at IV.I.
- ↑ J. Alex Halderman, CDT & ACM Security Research Renewal Pet. at 4.
- ↑ MEMA Security Research Renewal Pet. at 3.
- ↑ The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this class, including citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can be found in the Register’s Recommendation at IV.J.
- ↑ SPN & LCA Software Preservation Renewal Pet. at 3.
