 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Friday, February 16, 2007Learning From Constructive Criticism.Sometimes even negative feedback can be quite valuable. There are many situations where politeness might damp down willingness to utter constructive criticism, and daring to give some unwelcome indications might under such circumstances well be perceived as a merit. When someone is listening to criticism, there can be a chance to learn something. This does not only hold for individuals but also for groups or even whole professions. Therefore I am always very interested to listen and tend to prick up my ears whenever someone with knowledge in the business gives some sort of reasoned appraisal with regard to some aspect of the business of the profession of patent attorneys.During past weeks and months Mr. Joff Wild of the  IAM Blog has opened some of such chances to learn. For example, in his posting dated December 05, 2006, he wrote that it is always worth remembering that were the EPLA, the London Protocol and/or the Community Patent ever to see the light of day as viable options, a lot of people could be adversely affected; not least those working in national patent offices, patent attorneys and patent lawyers - all of whom would run the risk of seeing traditional sources of work (national patent applications, translations, litigation etc) become scarcer. Later on, Mr. Wild wrote in his Blog under the date of February 01, 2007:"[...] The problem in Europe, however, is that there are very strong vested interests with a huge stake in the system as it currently is. For example, if translations are less important moving forward, that is going to have a substantial impact on the income of many patent attorneys in many countries. Likewise a single European patent court is going to mean less litigation work for a large number of lawyers, while the availability of a patent that covers the whole of Europe spells danger for national patent offices. With all this in mind, let's consider who are among those most closely involved in the negotiation process. You've guessed it: national patent offices, patent attorneys and patent lawyers. Just what incentive do they have to find a way forward that will work? Throw in a very vocal and well organised lobby opposed to many forms of patenting on ideological grounds and you have a recipe for no meaningful progress at all. [...]"This has caused Mr. David Pearce of the well-known IPKat Blog to make a posting attempting to put Mr. Wild's criticism into perspective: "[...] The IPKat would like to point out in a friendly way that patent attorneys as a body, ably represented by the Chartered Institute, have a clearly stated position of approving the EPLA, and have certainly not tried to block these moves. Furthermore, translations do not in fact have a great impact on attorney fees, since they are almost always outsourced to specialist firms, whose fees are simply passed on to the client. There is no great advantage for anyone in perpetuating a fragmented European patent system. [...]"In response, Mr. Wild argued:"[...] I would like to stress that I was talking about Europe as a whole and not about the UK. I am aware of CIPA's support for the EPLA and the London Agreement (indeed, I have commented on it here), but support from national patent attorney associations in other European countries has been far more lukewarm, if it exists at all. We ran this piece in December about the situation in France, for example.While I do clearly see the point raised by Mr. Pearce I nevertheless would like to defend Mr. Wild uttering some less favorable thoughts on the general role of patent attorneys. The size of the patent profession throughout Europe has considerably soared during the past fifteen years (I guess that the number of German Patentanwälte has nearly doubled over that period), and the often rude and pointless agitation of various anti-patent campaigners against patent attorneys might further amplify some kind of robust professional self-esteem because of it might, when riding the crest of a wave, feed perceptions that criticism to the present state of business activities of patent attorneys is null and void in general. Comments like those supplied by Mr. Wild might serve as a reality check: Some circles (surely a minority yet) of the industry appear to perceive patent attorneys perhaps more as a the lesser evil than as a pure blessing. Read Mr. Wild writing on December 10, 2006, after having had some conversations with in-house consultants in Brussels, saying that he is not sure how long they are going to be happy giving work to attorneys who are resisting proposals that companies believe will be of significant benefit. After all, Wild asks "is it wise to employ someone who you believe does not have your best interests at heart"?Another point of interest might be assessing the present and future role of collaboration over the Internet in the context of innovation processes. I entertain some suspicion that a significant part of the profession might not be fully aware of what is happening all over in the society now. Patent attorneys should not ignore Schumpeter's concept of  creative destruction - one day it might also be turned against that what patent attorneys are offering in their sort of business. And the economic competence of patent attorneys is perceived as being quite low, causing the President of the EPO publicly thinking about another profession emerging and filling this gap in the landscape of IP businesses. Alarm bells should be ringing at the headquarters of the various patent attorneys' associations. Constructive criticism with regard to the present role of patent attorneys might help to create and safeguard a sustainable business model for the future which, in ten or twenty years, will most likely not be identical to that which we have today. Technorati Tags: PatentsLabels: Patent Attorneys
| ||||||||||||||||
