News picks
Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.
| Thread name | Started | Posts | Recent post |
|
We are very pleased to have entered into this agreement with Huawei" said Ilkka Rahnasto, Vice President, Intellectual Property Rights, Nokia. "Huawei is the thirty-fifth company to license Nokia patents related to cellular standards and this agreement demonstrates how companies can license intellectual property in a way that encourages industry innovation and fosters a healthy IPR environment.
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 08:07 |
1 | |
|
F/OSS is rife with legal ambiguities and risk. F/OSS is subject to an anomalous, complex, and decentralized licensing scheme that has evolved entirely apart from conventional, commercial licensing models. F/OSS also raises other copyright issues, as well as presents patent and trademark concerns. Of note: software patents may soon be eliminated.
|
by: 29 Sep 2008 05:49 |
1 | |
|
I personally consider patents as an arsenal of business cold war. Companies have plenty of patents for a fear factor. This leads to interesting cross licensing but also in the telecommunication field patents are used to regulate margets so that new and smaller players have trouble getting in. For example about every mobile communication standard has been patented. Patents are controversial and seem to be a big mess. It remains to be seen how big mess it will become after EU decides to make some wise decisions.
|
by: 28 Sep 2008 10:14 |
1 | |
|
The goal of a patent troll (or it may be argued, a patent ‘dealer’) is typically to licence their patent to the alleged infringer. This after-the-fact licensing involves large money for the troll, for no contribution to the field. It has however been argued that ‘patent dealers’ support and encourage the patent system (and therefore innovation) by encouraging use of the patent process.
|
by: 28 Sep 2008 09:50 |
1 | |
|
Some german contributors sent us some nice SSP wallpapers for your desktop background. So that you remember that the issue of fighting software patents is a daily task. Enjoy!
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 22:56 |
1 | |
|
Several organisations in Bangalore are organising a meeting to discuss the dubious plans of the Indian Patent Office to adopt the same infamous 'technical effect' doctrine of the EPO. The Indian patent law is a copy/paste from the European Patent Convention, containing the 'as such' provision. The Patent Office said it would organise a public meeting, but it seems that organisations prefer to organise their own meeting.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 22:35 |
1 | |
|
The company I work for (we are a one-year-old start-up) has recently started filing patents to protect some of its intellectual property. At the onset of the patent process, one of the executives drafted a very basic Patent Incentive Program (PIP) which is now under full review to ensure that it is both accurate and fair. The basics of our original PIP are that inventors receive (or co-inventors share): $500 for each provisional filing, $1500 for an actual patent filing (with full claim-sets defined), and $5000 for any patent that is granted by the USPTO. While the current program seems fair to our staff, we have been unable to find anything to compare it to.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 22:06 |
1 | |
|
Property rights have the potential to be strong institutions promoting economic growth. But, as these examples show, if the rights are not well-designed and well-implemented, they can be perverted from this goal. Brian Kahin draws the parallel between the financial/real-estate “bubble” with the still-expanding “bubble” in patents. As Brian suggests, combine that bubble with a Ponzi scheme (Intellectual Ventures) and you might have a real perversion.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 19:47 |
1 | |
|
She agreed the high number of software and business-methods patents meant it was difficult to advise clients on whether they could head off in a particular direction. But she said the willingness to patent in this area reflected the economic rewards to be gained, which were crucial to protect. Mallesons Stephen Jaques partner Scott Bouvier said raising the bar for obtaining a patent in the services field would be a "retrograde step" and would discourage businesses from innovating.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 19:00 |
1 | |
|
…in new areas of patenting such as software and business methods, there is strong evidence that existing intellectual property arrangements are hampering innovation. …The inventive steps required to qualify for patents should be considerable, and the resulting patents must be well-defined, so as to minimise litigation and maximise the scope for subsequent innovation.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 18:57 |
1 | |
|
TIIP points us to the news that the Australian government is considering an overhaul of that country's patent system after being presented with research showing how much the system was actually holding back innovation in that country. Specifically, the report showed that the ease of getting a patent in Australia was leading to way too many bad patents being granted, which were then being used to stifle innovation and investment. It's always good to see at least some folks in governments around the world are finding out that "more patents" does not equal "more innovation."
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 18:56 |
1 | |
|
The staff objections mirror those from opponents of the patent system in Europe and the US and opponents to any extension of patents to cover software. A common argument from those opponents is that examiners are not strict enough in policing patent quality. [...] "These rights can easily be misused to put smaller entities under pressure and stifle rather than promote innovation. We have been warned by the evolution of the American patent system that has provoked much headache and dispute on the other side of the Atlantic. Ultimately, the European consumer will pay the bill for such a distortion of competition," she said.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 18:38 |
1 | |
|
SUEPO needs to be completely transparent about its motivation, otherwise there will be a suspicion that patent quality is just being used as a tool to attract headlines. That, of course, is a very dangerous game. It can help to reinforce the claims that the patent system is not working. If you don’t believe me, just look at the enthusiastic coverage the strikes are receiving on anti-software patent websites.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 18:35 |
1 | |
|
Staff at the European Patent Office went on strike accusing the organization of corruption: specifically, stretching the standards for patents in order to make more money. One of the ways that the EPO has done this is by issuing software patents in defiance of the treaty that set it up.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 12:07 |
2 |
by 27 Sep 2008 17:11 Jump! |
|
American Print Management works with print buyers to reduce their measurable hard-dollar costs of print marketing, direct mail, commercial print and packaging. This is accomplished through the combination of a sophisticated workflow and communications system, a menu of professional services and the application of the company’s U. S. patented business method. Government Print Management works with print suppliers to gain U. S. Government Printing Office and other government work.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 12:05 |
1 | |
|
IV's licensee investors, including Sony, Nokia, Google, eBay, Intel, and Microsoft, are all sworn to secrecy about their involvement. According to the Journal article, other investors include pension funds and university endowments, and Myrhvold will target smaller companies for licensing fees (and equity) in the future. [...] Moreover, much of it has gone underground and "off the books" -- into threatening letters, secret settlements, massive cross-licenses, and a wide variety of privately pooled interests and funds. All of this is beyond the grasp of a Congress that has a hard enough time coming to grips with the doctrinal complexity of patent law and reported cases. Nobody wants to bite the bullet and say, if we're going to regulate innovation with a crude tool like patents, we should do it in a forthright and transparent way that takes economic factors and fundamental industry differences into account.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 11:22 |
1 | |
|
Problems will arise if your invention comprises a computer program or method for doing business. Where it is solely in relation to it computer programs or business methods it will not be regarded as an inventions. However, do not lose all faith as patent protection can be obtained for inventions implemented by computer programs. As lawyers we need to ask whether the invention makes a technical contribution to what is already known in that field. A patent is unobtainable if the only inventive step relates to matter which is excluded from patent protection, such as a computer program.
|
by: 27 Sep 2008 09:57 |
1 | |
|
The staff complaints were addressed to EPO president Alison Brimelow and its council president Roland Grossenbacher. "Ms Brimelow, Mr Grossenbacher: stop decentralising EPO tasks, stop ruining the quality of granted patents, stop distorting the system away from the interests of real innovators towards the interests of the most aggressive international players and perhaps a few Anglophone patent attorneys, stop opposing the Lisbon agenda, stop frustrating the EPO staff," said Jacobs. "Become aware of your real task: serve the European consumers, universities, SMEs and all real innovators, gear the EPO to the EU, support and facilitate the introduction of the community patent, allow your staff to proudly serve Europe and its citizens."
|
by: 25 Sep 2008 14:38 |
1 | |
|
One of the causes of so many bad patents getting approved lately is screwed up incentives in the patent system. For a while, the US had a de facto system where agents were pushed to approve a patent when in doubt. That's because they were judged on how many patents they went through -- and if they rejected a patent, the applicant could complain and ask for a review -- meaning that the examiner would have to spend more time reviewing that same patent again, decreasing the number of patents they had gotten through, potentially harming their "stats." Thus, it's often easier to just "approve."
|
by: 25 Sep 2008 14:31 |
1 | |
|
MP3 has been an enormously successful case of software patent; but it is perhaps just one among the handful of such hugely successful ones!” Prof Sadagopan adds: “Many of us would like a moderate regime, where algorithms are not patented; of course, there must be some protection available for unusual algorithms and implementations that have immediate product implications (like MP3).”
|
by: 25 Sep 2008 14:29 |
1 |
