Comments on: http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/15/ Open Rights Group Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:33:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gordon http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/15/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Gordon Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:22:28 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=15#comment-59 I agree with previous comments. At a business meeting talking to a Patent Lawer about taking out a patent he just held his hand out and"How much money have you got", the cost of researching and getting a patent is expensive but protecting that patent is even higher !. Then you have the disadvantage of telling the world all about your new idea !. Look what happening with the USPO having some 16000 hits on their site from China and Taiwan. Tighter controls must be placed on PO's on how patents are policed and given, a proper audit trail would be a start, especially looking at prior art !. I agree with previous comments.
At a business meeting talking to a Patent Lawer about taking out a patent he just held his hand out and”How much money have you got”, the cost of researching and getting a patent is expensive but protecting that patent is even higher !.
Then you have the disadvantage of telling the world all about your new idea !.
Look what happening with the USPO having some 16000 hits on their site from China and Taiwan.
Tighter controls must be placed on PO’s on how patents are policed and given, a proper audit trail would be a start, especially looking at prior art !.

]]> By: Chris Foster http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/15/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Chris Foster Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:25:22 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=15#comment-24 (a) I agree with the above comment. I hold a patent from one of my former jobs, and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to file a watertight patent without a patent lawyer. A good patent is one that is often described in very obtuse language and this is done for a reason. If they are contested then the description of the invention has to be completely unambiguous. A good patent also covers as many bases and extensions to the original idea, so that in the future a patent cannot be circumvented by simply changing a small detail of the invention. To write an application in an appropriate way would be very difficult for someone without technical AND legal skills and experience (i) I have suspicion of the period between the filing and granting of a patent. I wonder how much scrutiny a patent gets from the public during this period. Bearing in mind the volume of filings, I suspect that some (possibly the majority of) filings do not receive adequate analysis of their originality during this period from the public (Although I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this). Beyond this there is a search done by the patent office, I have seen several patent applications receive search results that are completely irrelevant to the original filing. This is not surprising considering that the patent office staff are not technical experts in every area that a patent is filed. In summary, I think that there is certainly room for improvement in the ways that patent are given scrutiny to ensure their originality. More active peer review systems for instance, could be a way to weeding out more unoriginal inventions (a) I agree with the above comment. I hold a patent from one of my former jobs, and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to file a watertight patent without a patent lawyer.

A good patent is one that is often described in very obtuse language and this is done for a reason. If they are contested then the description of the invention has to be completely unambiguous. A good patent also covers as many bases and extensions to the original idea, so that in the future a patent cannot be circumvented by simply changing a small detail of the invention.

To write an application in an appropriate way would be very difficult for someone without technical AND legal skills and experience

(i) I have suspicion of the period between the filing and granting of a patent. I wonder how much scrutiny a patent gets from the public during this period. Bearing in mind the volume of filings, I suspect that some (possibly the majority of) filings do not receive adequate analysis of their originality during this period from the public (Although I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this).

Beyond this there is a search done by the patent office, I have seen several patent applications receive search results that are completely irrelevant to the original filing. This is not surprising considering that the patent office staff are not technical experts in every area that a patent is filed.

In summary, I think that there is certainly room for improvement in the ways that patent are given scrutiny to ensure their originality. More active peer review systems for instance, could be a way to weeding out more unoriginal inventions

]]> By: David Mytton http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/15/comment-page-1/#comment-10 David Mytton Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:49:32 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=15#comment-10 1. a) Apart from cost (although this is included in cost), the complexity and precise requirements mean that our view is that we need a specialist legal advisor to compile the patent application to ensure it covers every aspect of an invention. This is expensive. b) The Patent Office website contains the information but it could do with a very simple, basic overview of the process required for securing copyright (even though registration isn't required), trademark and patent protection, along with examples and details about the process after application and approval. g) We are a software company and are against software patents. We feel that the protection provided by copyright law is sufficient and that software patents would cause major problems, as highlighted by the No Software Patents campaign. h) I don't think individuals would consider trademark or patent protection open to them on their own. It is often considered that these are very expensive and difficult to obtain, which may be the case. 1.
a) Apart from cost (although this is included in cost), the complexity and precise requirements mean that our view is that we need a specialist legal advisor to compile the patent application to ensure it covers every aspect of an invention. This is expensive.

b) The Patent Office website contains the information but it could do with a very simple, basic overview of the process required for securing copyright (even though registration isn’t required), trademark and patent protection, along with examples and details about the process after application and approval.

g) We are a software company and are against software patents. We feel that the protection provided by copyright law is sufficient and that software patents would cause major problems, as highlighted by the No Software Patents campaign.

h) I don’t think individuals would consider trademark or patent protection open to them on their own. It is often considered that these are very expensive and difficult to obtain, which may be the case.

]]>