Nothing is as handsome as a secret - French proverb
|
|
|
EU patents will be pulled in line with the US
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) has issued a single patent proposal to keep the EU competitive and in line with the US.
The EC said that current patent legislation is ten times more expensive in the EU than the US. EU members have to validate patents at a national level first, which creates yards of red tape to process. The EC said this stifles research, development and competition for EU members, drastically increasing costs and time.
"For Europe to be competitive globally, we need to encourage innovation. That's not the case today - it is far too expensive and complicated to obtain a patent," said internal market and services commissioner Michel Barnier.
"An EU Patent equally valid in all EU countries, is crucial to stimulate research and development and will drive future growth."
"Today's proposal - the last element of the patent reform package - is good news for innovators across Europe, in particular small businesses. I now hope that Member States will act quickly to ensure the EU patent becomes a reality. I am committed to working closely with all sides to reach a final agreement."
Our existing system has 37 countries vying for patent space and the EC claimed the extra bureaucracy adds ten times the costs. The EC estimated that it costs £16,400 to file and register EU patents while it costs only £1,500 to get a patent in the US. The EC's proposal guesstimates that it willl get costs down to £5,000. µ
Share this:
Share
A possible solution to the matter of languages for the EU patent could consist in adapting the provisions of the London Agreement on patents (i.e. the agreement on the application of article 65 EPC). Specifically:
1. An EU patent is granted in one or more languages, at least one of which must be English, French or German;
2. Claims must always be translated into English, French and German;
3. An EU patent proposal can be filed in anyone of the 23 official EU languages;
4. A granted EU patent is always enforceable in all EU member states whose official languages include one among English, French or German;
5. Each EU member state whose official languages do not include any among English, French or German, must choose one or more among them, such that: if the languages in which an EU patent is granted include the one chosen (or include at least one among those chosen, in case more than one were chosen), then that patent is enforceable in that member state.
6. A granted EU patent is also enforceable in a given member state if the languages in which the patent was granted include at least one of that member state’s official languages.
7. Independently on the language in which a patent is initially filed, the cost for a single translation into one among English, French or German (chosen by the applicant) shall be refunded by the EU.
8. Independently on the language in which a patent is initially filed, translation costs for the claims into English, French and German shall be refunded by the EU (possibly).
Intellectual Property is Fraud
Read it and weep, all lovers of authoritarian domination:
The Myth That Without Gov't Monopolies Or Subsidies, Discoveries Will Be Hidden By Secrets
by Mike Masnick
Stephan Kinsella sends over a fascinating talk by Dr. Terence Kealey, a UK biochemist and professor, discussing why -- contrary to what most people think, "science" is not a public good, and that government-funded science actually tends to do more damage than good for global economies:
<video
Many of the points raised actually apply to issues related to patents as well. For example, he starts out by quoting Francis Bacon, who defended the idea of governments funding science by claiming (as we often hear about patents), that if an individual invests in research, it will cost a great deal to do so, but any competitor can then copy the results for free. And thus, Bacon concluded, science was a form of a public good which the government should fund. Sound familiar?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2304419976.shtml
Read that article. Now realize that we are KILLING our innovation and ability to grow our economy. We are KILLING our civilization with authoritarian control, just as assuredly as the Soviet Union's bureaucrats and regulations killed it.
It's your choice people. Acknowledge the truth, painful as it may be to accept, or continue to believe in the lie and commit mass societal suicide.
This EC proposal follows the much-anticipated Bilski decision by the US Supreme Court, which was published on June the 28th.
It seems that the EC may have not properly analyzed that decision which, against expectations, did not contribute substantially to the definition of patentable subject matter.
The EU vies to advance when the US backtracks. This was also the case when earlier this decade the EC pushed unsuccessfully for a directive on software patents to approach US policy, and the US then tried to approach previous EU policy, in the 2008 decision on the same Bilksi case by the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
It would be well that the EU and the US could better co-ordinate their advances and retreats in patentability criteria, and not mix the matter of EU linguistic identity with it.
*NAPO - North-Atlantic Patent Organization.*
Congratulations, Mr Barker, for your stunning lateral thinking ability.
No really, transforming the point of interest from a discussion on patent issues into an excuse to put up a link to your pet peeve that has nothing to do with patents is a masterstroke.
Genius. Useless, crassly commercial, but genius.
My dear man, it is quite obvious that you've never been to Paris suburbs. Heck, you've probably never even been served by a French waiter.
;-)
Heh, heh. Esperanto. Always makes me giggle.
We should return to French as the, er, "lingua franca". It's difficult to be rude in French, and even then, it still sounds like amour...
Quite simply sticking to three languages is no more than language imperialism, including the language imperialism of English.
Esperanto is now officially recognised – through the World Esperanto Association – and they are campaigning in favour of the protection of all minority languages worldwide. Please see their argument here at the United Nations in Geneva http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCmY4msHLqk
Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG20YJE_ibw&feature=related
They used to laugh at Esperanto. Not any more
As a multi patented American Inventor -- I much appreciate this article. Some of the comments are idiotic -- but that's not the fault of the writer.
And my comment is -- AND OUR CONGRESS IS SEEKING TO PASS SENATE BILL S.515 AND TO HARMonize US WITH THIS MADNESS?
First, the 1500 pound figure is a joke. If you wrote it yourself, and got a first office action Allowance, you'd baaaarely make it under that number. Add an attorney, and add even ONE rejection that requires a Response and Amendment, and you're looking at 4X that amount. Add an appeal, and it's 10X, minimum.
Second, the problem with the USPTO is NOT that it issues everything it sees (it does not), but, rather, that the quality and intelligence of its examiners varies WILDLY. Some examiners are smart and competent, and some are stupid beyond belief and utterly lacking in scientific training or even logical reasoning skills.
The biggest problem MY company has had over the past 8 years is that, without exception, the examiners have cited absolute garbage prior art which does not remotely teach the invention we're claiming, and they're sticking to their guns and forcing us into appeal after appeal, effectively bankrupting us. We're not in high tech, so your mileage may vary over there.
For a rubber-stamp that you likely won't be able to afford to prosecute in court, anyway. Unless you've something really fundamental, better off putting that money into development / marketing.
However, I still like the notion of patents, but only for actual, existing *machinery*, including circuitry. In the old days, you had to submit a working model with your application, and that's still the right way.
Watch very closely - and spot the point at which the hands move VERY quickly, and this turns into a back door to introduce software and business-method patenting in the EU.
So instead of costing a staggering *ten times* as much as the US, it will only cost an eyewatering *three times* as much.
Of course, the reason that patents in the US are so cheap to obtain is because the US patent office just grants everything and lets the courts sort it out later. Does that GBP 1500 figure include the cost of patent litigation? Somehow I suspect not.
The only sensible way to deal with patents is to abolish them. They were a poor solution to a 15th century problem, and totally inappropriate in todays market.