-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Supreme Court v. Patent Absurdity
,----[ Quote ]
| One direct consequence is that "patent
| trolls" buy up patents so they can sue
| innovators. Big technology companies pool
| their patents to reduce lawsuits. For
| information technology, the costs of
| litigating patents may be greater than the
| economic benefits of patents. Real money is
| involved: The largest patent-case judgment
| is for $1.67 billion, being appealed by
| Abbott Labs in a case brought in the
| plaintiff-happy federal court in eastern
| Texas.
`----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537481229336114.html
Book Review Monday: Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries
,----[ Quote ]
| The book ends with the perennial question of
| âwould we have got where we are today
| without patents?â Dutfield points out that
| it almost goes without saying both that the
| pharmaceutical industry is crucially
| important for human welfare since it
| produces cures (among other things), and
| that it is considered to be the most
| dependent of all industries on patents.
|
| This should remind us of two things that
| a new institutionalist approach leads us
| to expect. First, changes in property
| rights structures can never make winners
| out of everybody. Second, the
| differences between the gains for some
| and the losses for others are bound to
| be great when the biggest right holders
| have, as they often do, such a firm grip
| on the regulatory system to the partial
| or total exclusion of other holders,
| users and those representing consumer
| interests.
`----
http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/11/16/book-review-monday-intellectual-property-rights-and-the-life-science-industries/
Patent That: Reporter Invents Way to Reach PTO Director
,----[ Quote ]
| Journalists who cover Washington know the
| drill: top bureaucrats can be very hard to
| get through to, especially when you need to
| reach them the most.
|
| So when ABA Journal senior writer Terry
| Carter got nowhere in his recent effort to
| reach Patent and Trademark Office director
| David Kappos through spokesman Peter Pappas
| for a story he was writing, he decided on a
| characteristically novel approach: on
| Tuesday he drafted and posted a humorous
| patent application for a "method to get an
| interview with USPTO Director David Kappos."
| Edward Adams, editor and publisher of the
| ABA Journal, wrote in this story at the
| Journal Web site, "We figured the problem
| was that Carter was not speaking the
| agency's language."
`----
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/patent-that-reporter-finds-novel-way-to-reach-pto-head.html
Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/nil-the-value-of-patents-in-a-major-crisis-such-as-an-influenza-pandemic.html
Internet-hosted prior art and proof of publication: UK not bound by EPO level of proof
,----[ Quote ]
| In a recent hearing concerning a UK patent
| application, Ranger Services Ltd's
| application, BL O/362/09, 17 November 2009,
| Hearing Officer Lawrence Cullen was faced
| with a question relating to the status of
| cited prior art which had been obtained from
| an internet archive. Rejecting the
| application before him, which was for a
| system of using an automatic number plate
| recognition system to detect cloned vehicle
| number plates, he considered that the
| current European Patent Office guidelines
| [see earlier IPKat post here] would suggest
| that the cited prior art should be taken
| into account.
`----
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/11/internet-hosted-prior-art-and-proof-of.html
Common Misconceptions about Plagiarism and Patents: A Call for an Independent Inventor Defense
,----[ Quote ]
| Defenders of patents commonly say they are
| against innovators' ideas being "stolen" or
| "plagiarized." This implies that patents
| simply permit an innovator to sue those who
| copy his idea. This position betrays either
| disingenuity or ignorance about patent law.
| Let me explain.
|
| Under copyright law, someone who
| independently creates an original work
| similar to another author's original work is
| not liable for copyright infringement, since
| the independent creation is not a
| reproduction of the other author's work.
| Thus, for example, a copyright defendant can
| try to show he never had access to the
| other's work, as a defense. The reason for
| this is that the fundamental copyright is,
| well, a right to copy one's original
| creative work. By the nature of creative
| works that are subject to copyright, it is
| very unlikely someone would independently
| create the same novel, say, or painting, as
| another author. (And if copyright only
| protected literal copying, it would be much
| less a problem; but unfortunately it
| protects a bundle of rights including also
| the right to make "derivative works".) But,
| in the rare case where author 2
| independently creates a work very similar to
| that of author 1, it is not an infringement
| of author 1's copyright, since author 2 did
| not copy anything.
|
| Patent law is different. Very different.
| Most defenders of IP do not seem to be aware
| of this difference--one reason they should
| not be opining in favor of legal regimes
| they know little about. When patent
| defenders say that patent abolitionists are
| in favor of plagiarism and idea theft, they
| imply that patent law is like copyright
| law--that it simply prevents people from
| copying others' ideas.
`----
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001904
A Modest Proposal: "How to Fix Capitalism"
,----[ Quote ]
| "How to Fix Capitalism" is an insanely
| ambitious post that ranges over, well, just
| about everything concerned with business and
| all it touches. The following proposals give
| some hint of its deep wisdom:
|
| # Abolish patents. They have not been
| proven to speed progress: the evidence
| seems to be to the contrary. They
| definitely increase costs, are an
| inefficient way of funding R & D and
| allow oligopolists to block competition.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/11/modest-proposal-how-to-fix-capitalism.html
Recent:
Letters Patent: Bilski Begins
,----[ Quote ]
| Remember, the patent system is supposed to
| encourage innovation of just this kind â
| not to snuff it out.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2634&blogid=14
In Re Bilski - Transcript of Today's Oral Argument at the US Supreme Court - Updated 3Xs
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091109191422928
Bilskiâs hearing and software patents
,----[ Quote ]
| At Mondayâs hearing (court transcript),
| neither party had the objective of
| abolishing software patents. The Bilski
| case is about a business method patent, so
| there was Mr. Jakes arguing that business
| methods should be patentable, and Mr.
| Stewart arguing that they shouldnât. For
| software to be excluded, weâre relying on
| the judges (to whom we wrote an amicus
| brief, as did many others). Thereâre a few
| worrying statements, but thereâs also a lot
| of hope.
|
| On the issue of business methods, the
| judges were very sceptical but mentioned
| many times that they donât see an obvious
| place to draw the line. Indeed, they seemed
| to find Jakesâ position comical at times,
| and also found Stewart not going far enough
| and said that with his proposed
| interpretation, a computer could be added
| to any idea to make a patentable âmachineâ,
| thus also failing to exclude business
| method patents. There are also some
| worrying statements in there, like Justice
| Sotomayor calling the 2008 CAFC in re
| Bilski ruling âextremeâ.
`----
http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/
Software patent case arrives at Supreme Court
,----[ Quote ]
| With the tech industry looking on, the
| Supreme Court today will explore what types
| of inventions should be eligible for a
| patent in a pivotal case that could
| undermine such legal protections for
| software.
`----
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-11-09-patents09_ST_N.htm
Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism
,----[ Quote ]
| The judicial activism thesis may have a
| superficial appeal. State Street was a
| highly visible and prominent pronouncement
| by the federal court having nationwide
| jurisdiction over patent cases. It may seem
| reasonable to attribute tremendous
| implications to such a famous judicial
| opinion. Yet the judicial activism thesis
| suffers from multiple glaring problems and
| plainly cannot account for the timing of
| the rise in business method patenting,
| which plainly began well before State
| Street.
`----
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/business-method-patents-technological-change-not-judicial-activism.html
Patent law must not stifle innovation
,----[ Quote ]
| In a world of constantly accelerating
| technological change, economic prosperity
| depends on innovation. To support such
| innovation, it is vital that our patent
| system be well-calibrated, so that overly
| broad patent monopolies do not choke
| innovation. In the last several years,
| patent standards have been relaxed by the
| courts, which has created a patent system
| that hinders innovation in the software
| industry.
|
| [...]
|
| Such lawsuits can be ruinously expensive -
| including, for an average-size case,
| millions of dollars in attorneys' fees.
| Large software companies have developed
| defenses against some patent threats,
| including obtaining their own patents that
| they may use to bring countersuits if
| attacked. This strategy is only available
| to well-financed companies. Even large
| companies face increased litigation risks
| from businesses with no purpose other than
| exploiting patents. These businesses -
| called non-practicing entities, or, less
| politely, patent trolls - buy patents not
| with a view of producing products, but
| rather so that they can demand ransom from
| operating companies.
`----
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/178809.html
High Court Must Lower Bar For Patents
,----[ Quote ]
| Due to an important federal circuit court
| of appeals decision last year, this type of
| powerful innovation may no longer be
| patentable. In upholding a lower court
| ruling, the federal circuit wrote that a
| business process (like online banking) must
| be "tied to a machine" or transform "a
| substance into a different state or thing"
| in order to qualify for patent protection.
| This "machine or transformation" test, as
| it is called, is too rigid to incite
| innovation.
`----
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-chaclas-pitney-patent.artoct30,0,5438710.story
An Important Patent Law Precedent Approaches
,----[ Quote ]
| So now, shorn of all the technicalities,
| the Supreme Court gets a chance to say
| whether it means what it's always said, or
| whether it wants to endorse the fast and
| flashy round-heeled patent system we were
| running during the boom times. Of course,
| it can always do nothing at all, or make a
| new alternative that wasn't there before;
| that's what being the Supreme Court means,
| as any Legal Realist will tell you. But one
| thing is certain, that if they wind up
| saying anything at all, what the Justices
| say in this case will determine the course
| of patent law for a long time to come.
`----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-moglen/an-important-patent-law-p_b_342962.html
A Math Geek's Ride to the High Court in Landmark Patent Fight
,----[ Quote ]
| The company is marketing the product even
| without the patent, so Warsaw was asked:
| Why keep fighting for it? "Our revenues are
| down millions of dollars because we don't
| have the patent" and the royalty stream
| that would have resulted, he said. "We have
| no market power. That's the essence of it.
| You can't protect your interests."
`----
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435264768&A_Math_Geeks_Ride_to_the_High_Court_in_Landmark_Patent_Fight
Bilski Supreme Court Preview: Finnegan Lawyer Challenging 'Machine or
Transformation' Patent Test Says He's Ready
,----[ Quote ]
| The appellate court ruled that in order for
| a business method to receive patent
| protection, it would need to either
| "transform [an] article to a different
| state or thing," or be "tied to a
| particular machine." The opinion sent the
| patent bar into an uproar, with businesses
| asserting that the new standard jeopardized
| patents on all kinds of highly valuable
| intellectual property, including software.
`----
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202435239067
Supreme Court to decide: What kind of innovations get a patent?
,----[ Quote ]
| At issue is whether US patent protection
| must be limited to inventions involving
| machines and transformative processes, or
| whether patent law also embraces
| nonphysical inventions like improved
| business methods and software innovations.
|
| The case, Bilski v. Kappos, is viewed as a
| potential landmark in patent law. It has
| attracted 67 friend-of-the-court briefs
| from lawyers, scholars, and businesses,
| including Microsoft, the Biotechnology
| Industry Organization, Bank of America,
| Google, Yahoo, and L.L. Bean.
`----
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1108/p02s13-usju.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAksJyVkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4+VgCfdRcO/DT/5BI7hDQ8BChwiavh
aEYAn35lNxrVe67YDkeYjUAMd7FXfhNC
=slU/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
