|
Patent News From PubPat and IBM |
|
Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
|
The Public Patent Foundation today argued before the nation's foremost patent court that patent law's requirement that a patent attorney be hired every time one becomes aware of a patent that may relate to their activity is "irrational and unjustifiably prejudicial": "Reading the duty to avoid infringing patents to require every company, regardless of size, to hire patent counsel ..., is simply unfair and unrealistic," PubPat stated in its Amicus Curiae brief filed with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Knorr-Bremse v. Dana Corp. "There are many reasons why a company might be aware of a patent but not obtain a legal opinion. One is cost." The brief cites a study from 1997 that determined the cost for retaining a patent attorney to provide a written opinion regarding a single patent can cost up to $50,000 or more.
Here is PubPat's press release:
PATENT LAW SHOULD STOP IMPOSING PUNISHMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE CAN'T AFFORD
AN ATTORNEY: PUBPAT Tells Federal Appeals Court of Harms Caused by Patent
Law's Perverse Rule
Patent law's requirement that a patent attorney be hired every time one
becomes aware of a patent that may relate to their activity is "irrational
and unjustifiably prejudicial," PUBPAT told the nation's foremost patent
court in a case argued today.
Named for the 1983 case that established it, the Underwater Devices duty
requires any person or business that becomes aware of any patent to retain a
patent attorney and seek a written opinion regarding whether or not they
infringe the patent. Failing to do so leads a court to presume infringement
of the patent was willful and to impose a penalty three times greater than
for non-willful infringement.
"Reading the duty to avoid infringing patents to require every company,
regardless of size, to hire patent counsel ..., is simply unfair and
unrealistic," PUBPAT stated in its Amicus Curiae brief filed with the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Knorr-Bremse v. Dana Corp.
"There are many reasons why a company might be aware of a patent but not
obtain a legal opinion. One is cost." The brief cites a study from 1997
that determined the cost for retaining a patent attorney to provide a
written opinion regarding a single patent can cost up to $50,000 or more.
PUBPAT argued that the Underwater Devices duty causes two significant harms.
First, it undermines the goal of patent law, to disseminate useful technical
information, by encouraging scientists to avoid becoming aware of patents.
Second, it unfairly prejudices small businesses because the cost of seeking
numerous patent opinions is a substantial financial burden.
"Subjecting individuals and small businesses to greater liability simply
because they can not afford to retain a patent attorney is a prime example
of a disconnect between our patent laws and the public interest," said
PUBPAT's Executive Director, Dan Ravicher. "Reversing Underwater Devices
will be one step towards fixing our patent system, and we fully expect the
Federal Circuit, having heard our arguments, to take that step."
PUBPAT's brief is available at
http://www.pubpat.org/Educating_and_Advocating.htm.
PUBPAT WEBSITE LAUNCHED
Visit the newly launched Public Patent Foundation website at www.pubpat.org
to learn more about PUBPAT and its activities.
Are pigs flying, or what? A Senior VP at IBM, Nicholas Donofrio, has an article, called "The Fallacy About Patents", on News.com, in which he says there must be a better way to encourage innovation than patents. He says IBM and other companies are looking into this issue and will be making legislative recommendations at a summit meeting later this year. When IBM, the owner of reportedly more patents than any company in the world, says there must be a better way, I think we may safely take it to the bank that the current patent system really is broken. It will be interesting to see what their recommendations are, though. IBM's Donofrio looks at the big picture in his article:
How can we move beyond traditional notions of R&D and intellectual property creation to nurture the intersections that lead to real innovation? Along those same lines, how do we measure innovation? A group of influential business and academic leaders (including IBM CEO Sam Palmisano) is committed to a broad-based national innovation initiative that will study critical aspects of this challenge and present concrete recommendations at a summit meeting later this year.
Are we ready to rethink how we protect and reward those who spend time and resources to create something new and better? Currently, a sizable percentage of patent application fees are diverted away from an overburdened U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. When you consider that the licensing of U.S. patents contributed more than $150 billion to our economy in 2001, proposed congressional legislation that would end this diversion of user-paid fees to other agencies is the right step. IBM and nearly 100 other companies and 28 associations are supporting it--even though this legislation will cost us money.
|
|
Authored by: jmccorm on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST |
I have to know... 666 words.
Was this planned?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST |
This is simply amazing. At first I thought IBM hadn't really changed its ways,
that it was just cynically using the open source/free software movements to
further its own ends.
Now, I don't know what to think. Maybe with IBM's muscle behind a legislative
push, we can end up with a better system. (I'd settle for software patents that
only lasted two years.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bobn on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST |
When will people stop using this screwed up expression? "up to $50000"
means less than or equal to 50000. "$50000 or more" means greater than or
equal to 50000. So when one says "up to $50,000 or more", one has said
nothing at all, as both $0.000001 and $99999999999999999999 fall into
this range.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST |
• Are we doing enough with education programs to encourage our
children's interest in careers in math, sciences and engineering? Graduate
degrees in these disciplines are down about 25 percent for the past decade, even
as the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century projects that by 2008 the technology-driven economy will add 5.6 million
U.S. jobs in the health sciences and computer industries that require these
advanced skills.
Umm, maybe people aren't taking up those fields of
study because such jobs are getting sent overseas as fast as companies like IBM
can send them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST |
Perhaps people might be more comfortable about inventing or expressing things if
they didn't feel like they had to tiptoe around IP minefields? Captain Obvious
strikes again: OSS comes to mind here. Hence the extreme relevancy and need for
such things as groklaw...
---
"Truly, if Te is strong in one, all one needs to do is sit on one's ass, and the
corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past shortly." (seen on USENET)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:07 PM EST |
As an effective economic competitor, IBM will definitely benefit from shorter
software patent periods because IBM's continuing effort will help it generate a
steady flow of software patents. Microsoft may or may not approve: on one hand,
Microsoft is aggressive on R&D and should not be negatively affected. On the
other hand, Microsoft's patent library shrinks significantly. The only
significant losers are those companies that have old patents but have made no
efforts to generate new patents since. The software patent system should reward
continuous effort at innovation, not resting on old glories. And shortening the
period for software patents may be the most effective method of getting rid of
the tide of questionable software patents that USPTO has been carelessly
awarding over the years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- AGREE! (n/m) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:14 PM EST
|
Authored by: lnx4me on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:13 PM EST |
The following excerpts are from a
CNN Dumb and Dumber... article. Enjoy!
(Business 2.0) --
The year is just getting started, and that can mean only one thing: It's time to
reflect on the most shameful, dishonest, and just plain stupid tech moments of
2003.
Influence software sales
"Terrorists do
things designed to intimidate people, and we see a lot of that going on all the
time -- people trying to attack us or people that we're associated with." SCO
Group CEO Darl McBride, complaining about the backlash from hundreds of
thousands of Linux users after the former Linux software vendor sued IBM, a
major Linux proponent, for allegedly violating its intellectual-property rights.
Notice the "allegedly" in addition to their making "the
list".
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST |
The Eagle is Grounded [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST |
Nah, you should have to hire a patent attorney to breath even.
After all, you don't want poor schmuks to be able to have patents. Only the
wealthy should have access to become more wealthy or protect their ideas.
Pff....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:28 PM EST |
I've noticed over my career that the overal flavor of IBM's actions can be
associated with its CEO at the time, Thomas Watson being the obvious
example from the past. I remember the Akers era, until he was ousted, as
being a time when IBM lost its way. I remember the Gerstner era as the time
when IBM adopted the standard corporate methods of layoffs and profit
maximization.
This Sam Palmisano era so far seems intriguing to me. They have put their
weight behind Linux both in rhetoric as well as profits, and they mean it. And
now talk about patent reform? I am cautiously encouraged that the Palmisano
era will be looked back upon as an enlightened era where power was not
necessarily used to crush others, but where it was used to find profits while
doing the right thing.
I know, that's overly simplistic and it's a fallacy to look for consistent
behavior
in a company that has hundreds of thousands of employees. I'm sure at this
very moment they are doing some awful business things too. All I'm saying is
that I did not see this level of C-level enlightenment back in the 80s and early
90s. May it grow and prosper for both IBM and the industry as a whole.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gdeinsta on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST |
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Writing software is
inherently a creative act. You don't write exactly the same program over and
over - that would be the same as just making copies. You write a new
program.
Copyright is for inherently creative works. Patents are for
innovations applied to not-inherently-creative works (e.g. churning out stuff on
an assembly line). For centuries these two areas of law have developed
independently to serve different needs.
Ergo, patents are not suitable
for software. It's not that patents last too long, they just aren't the tool
for the job. And it is the ghastliest mistake of all to let the same program be
covered by both patent and copyright law. Hence "we, uh, don't really
know what we have here". So the only real solution is to abolish these
johnny-come-lately software patents, and their ugly sisters the business process
patents.
Then, we need to get copyright cut back to a reasonable
length. Like 10 years from the date of publication, which is what it was when
copyright was first introduced to England in 1710. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST |
Had an e-mail exchange with a fellow from IP Australia about software patents
recently. Basically, I pointed out to him that they are simply patents on
algorithms, which is no different to obtaining a patent on a book of mathematics
(which isn't allowed, BTW). Anyhow...
I have explained that I'm a lone free software developer and that software
patents can prevent me from publishing something I wrote myself. Then he
suggested I should search patents databases every time I think I might be
infriging on a patent. He also suggested that I should mount opposition to any
patent I see as invalid for whatever reason. It isn't expensive, he said.
I have reiterated that there's just me - I don't have a a legal department or
spare time to search for patents. I don't have funds to mount opposition (no
matter how insignificant those amounts are to him). How am I supposed to develop
software if I'm wasting my time on patent searches or mounting of opposition.
Got no reply to that one.
Such is the sad situation for free software developers in Oz...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Xenographic on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST |
Definately not the old IBM; but you'd expect a company like that, which plans to
stick around for the long term, to keep up with the times. *crosses fingers and
hopes they hire him at some point* :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST |
Has anyone got a link to the brief, rather than a press release about the brief? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|