BLOG@IPJUR.COMCalendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogOther StuffBlog AdministrationPowered by
|
Mr Bruno van Pottelsberghe Calling For European Patent RevolutionMonday, June 29. 2009
Mr van Pottelsberghe recently has published a paper titled 'Lost property: The European patent system and why it doesn't work' (PDF). Using new and hard-hitting data, van Pottelsberghe paints a dark picture of today's patent landscape both in Europe and internationally. According to his paper, it is a tale of failed public cooperation at all levels and of a regime in danger of rampant patent inflation unless minds and resources are focused on tackling the root causes of the problem. His specific recommendations include:
In the politically entrenched situation as we have it today in the Administrative Council (AC) of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg) and as well in the EU Council the perspective of such proposals might appear somewhat dim unless a specific pressure group would be built determined to improve the IP system. What if, for example, the various emerging Pirate Parties, instead of feeding futile dreams of patent abolition, would go into Mr van Pottelsberghe's school of thinking in order to produce some sort of more constructive critique? Tools
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Is anyone looking at redesigning patents themselves? Would patents be more useful, for example, if they incorporated modern publishing technologies such as hyperlinks, functioning spreadsheets, video etc.?
Hooray. Finally someone speaking out against these ridiculous "Patent Prosecution Highways".
And I quote:
"PPHs might harm the patent system, because a ‘speed’ condition is attached to treatment of a foreign report, whereas no ‘common’ patent quality conditions have been agreed upon by the main patent offices."
Took a while for someone to state the bleeding obvious.
Patent abolition is far from futile, boyo. We're smarter than you and we will win.
The entire patent system will be deleted to ensure freedom for humanity. Patent monopoly granting flies in the face of even vaguely modern economic theory, but the economics doesn't actually matter: there are (weak) economic arguments for slavery, but it's still wrong. So are patent lawyers who continue to enable and apologise for the thievery that is the patent system.
In the meantime, patent monpoly holders should at the very least be taxed hugely for the massive drain they really are on society. The patent offices should be wound down, no new patents granted, and their employees put out to pasture or offered retraining as productive members of society.
"Economists" are forced to go home with the patent system.
There is no data to study.
They can only make nice graphs about the number of granted patents.
But this is not economy, neither econometry.
The patent system is a believe system.
It is not backed by economic evidence, just lobbying.
Some words about the rapport: In many places in mentioned backlog is biggest problem in USA and Japan. But in reality the problem is mainly European. Of course the numbers of incoming applications are bigger in USA and Japan but so are the numbers of outcomes too.
These offices can manage applications, but EPO can not. In the application handling prosecution time is the crucial issue.
The rapport itself states:
"These backlogs are detrimental to the economy because they mean a longer period of economic and legal uncertainty on the market, in other words large numbers of potentially monopolistic rights hanging over the market but unresolved, constituting potential threats to other business."
And what are the application prosecution times: In USA and Japan 32 months but in EPO unparalleled 45 months.
Actually, Mr, the EPO can manage the application flow. If you request accelerated examination, you'll have a decision often well before the time it takes the USPTO or JPO to even pick up the application. Moreover, even without accelerated examination, a first Communication of the EPO, even the search report, will usually give a much more useful indication of the final outcome of examination than a first USPTO Office Action.
If the pendency times are so long at the EPO, it is rather because in most cases, it is the applicants' perfectly rational choice to make pendency as long as possible, for the simple reason that a granted European patent (with all the national validation and maintenance fees) is much, much more costly than a pending European patent application. To hold off grant until market success is secured is a common exercise among European patent attorneys.
If you want to reduce pendency times at the EPO, what is needed is to eliminate the perverse incentive for applicants to bog down their own applications. It takes two to tango, and even the most efficient EPO will be unable to accelerate prosecution if the applicant does not want to.
RE: RCalvo, Yes but most of patent application are filed by competitors, not by MyCompany. It's not economical reasonable to file accelerated examination request for all competitors' applications.
As the rapport in question states: Backlogs are detrimental to the economy because of legal uncertainty on the market.
And because of it is the applicants' choice to make pendency as long as possible, the Office should do something, like shorter reply deadlines or different payment schedule.
But in my own application cases majority of time is wasted in waiting EPO's activity. For example of the application in my responsibility has stayed in EPO over two years without any activity from EPO's side.
The competitors' application must be handled quick.
|
ProfileTools
List Of LinksLinkedIn GroupsBlogroll
Bob Sutor's Website and Blog
Tangible IP Danny Weitzner - Open Internet Policy IAM magazine - Blog Intellectual Property Watch IP Asset Maximizer Blog IPKat - news and fun for everyone! The Invent Blog® Patent Baristas Patent Law Blog (Patently-O) Peer to Patent Class 46 - for your European trade mark news NIPC IP/IT Update Patent Docs Better Mousetrap Blog BlawgIT phosita TechnoLlama Suepo Visae Patentes CC LicenceExcept where otherwise noted, content on this site is licenced under the terms of a Creative Commons 3.0 Licence as follows: 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr 
Share this Article on LinkedIn
