UK patent attorneys: ECJ should reject advisors' opinion The European Court of Justice should reject the opinion of its advisors and put pragmatic economics ahead of legal technicalities and approve a pan-EU patent court, the UK patent attorneys' trade body has said. Advocates General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said in an opinion that the current proposal for a pan- …
...the only benefiting party in this entire thing would be the patent lawyers... When they don't even pretend that patents might be usable outside of litigation by spewing such crap as "creating a unified patent litigation system" it means it's time to get rid of such law completly.
Maybe I read that wrong, but it seems to suggest that there is an organisation (CIPA) consisting of a collection of severe enough brain injuries that they think an EU legal institution should be based on principles that violate the EU's founding treaties, and that's just peachy.
I mean seriously ? Is it possible that they don't understand what a treaty is ? Do they really think that patents are sufficiently special that enforcing them is important enough to trump any other law ?*
I have no problem with patents per se, but when you get to the point that you have to have parts of the legal framework set aside in order to get your way with them, you're way past pragmatism and deeply into fuckyouville.
*consider that rhetorical.
The undoubted benefits of a pan-EU patent court is the empty set.
The only reason why I do not consider the European Patent Office an unmitigated disaster is because the UK Patent Office is about as bad. The last government spent milions of pounds of tax payers money advertising the patent system. The fact that the adverts did not increase the earnings of patent lawyers shows that businesses understand that the entire patent system is a complete waste of everyones' time and money.
Patents are no longer a tool for "the little guy" - and seem to be offered on increasingly spurious and unoriginal grounds to big businesses in order to strong-arm others out of the market.
A single legislature will make an easy target for Americanisation of the EU's superior patent rules, with dire consequences. We should keep the system fractured, it increases the cost dramatically.
What would be the "enormous commercial benefits" for businesses in having pan-European patents which aren't in accordance with European law? Presumably this would make them either straightforwardly worthless or the subject of (extra) years of ball-wrenchingly expensive litigation.
Bollocks.
Look at the American system - it's claim to fame is a legalised way to scream "are your base are belong to meeeeee".
For a patent system to work, it needs three specific criteria:
1. Dirt cheap patent application, so it is open and accessible to everybody (not just big business). You can recoup money when you clobber a patent infringer.
2. ABSOLUTE - the holder of a patent has TWO years to commercialise or otherwise make active use of an idea. Failure to do so means the patent will lapse.
3. Patents are non-transferrable. If selling a patented idea, it should be arranged so the original person reliquishes the patent and the buying company then registers anew.
The last two, hopefully, to prevent the practice of patent trolling. Perhaps it might work to have patents valid for two years only, renewable with documented proof of exercise. You know, a bit like .co.uk domain names but with some extra paperwork...
"
...
3. Patents are non-transferrable. If selling a patented idea, it should be arranged so the original person reliquishes the patent and the buying company then registers anew.
The last two, hopefully, to prevent the practice of patent trolling. "
The last one has fuck all to do with preventing trolling, rather it has to do with restricting people's rights on how they may transfer their IP rights, which frankly has fuck all to do with you or anyone else. If I own it, I shall sell it, license it or give it the fuck away in a pack of cornflakes as I see fit.
Oh and number two ? Two years ? You ABSOLUTEly haven't even the faintest idea how long it can take to turn an invention into a product.
So it's probably a good job we weren't /actually/ waiting for expert you to declare exactly how the patent system must work, isn't it ?
Funny, while I might be an idiot, I am not an expert on the patent system and nor have I claimed to be such. However barely a week goes by when we don't have an article following some (American) patent nonsense which seems designed for little purpose other than legalised extortion. A am thinking aloud in trying to suggest some ideas to make the system work on both sides, and not just be a convenient weapon for a large company to stomp on suspected competition. Perhaps my ideas were shit (two FAILs, guess so...)? Well, if you can come up with something better, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
1. Dirt cheap patent application, so it is open and accessible to everybody (not just big business). You can recoup money when you clobber a patent infringer.
It costs £280 all-in (official fees) to file, search, examine and obtain grant of a patent in the UK. If you DIY, that is. How much "dirt cheaper" do you want it to get? (take a look at European, US, Japanese, etc. fees for an eye-opener).
Of course, if you want to benefit from legal and practical expertise in this domain, you've got to pay for it. Same situation between servicing your car yourself, and having your car serviced by a qualified mechanic.
Suggestion 2 is downright ludicrous and actually related to Suggestion 3: on the whole, inventors are rarely the makers/marketers (unless they work in industry and the invention belongs to the company which makes/markets), so have to be able to sell or license their rights to such makers/marketers if the invention is to be exploited commercially. There is also the non-trivial issue that not everything for which a patent is sought at time T0 (the time at which you must apply for it) makes economical sense at time T+1.
Further, there are provisions (in the UK, and everywhere else, and there have been for decades) which enable interested 3rd parties to force a patentee to license a patented invention not commercially exploited. Look up "compulsory licenses".
You could do worse than to look into the "Patent Troll" issue in some detail and think for yourself (to realise it is a US-only issue, and a very minor one at that), rather than bleat about it with the rest of the herd in the usual uneducated fashion.
As for the article itself, unfortunately it lacks context and depth (not to mention a few hundred pages!) to explain the issue in sufficient (and sufficiently simple) details, for lay persons to understand what's at stake for European industries. Put simply, the AG has considered the issue strictly in the legal context (fair enough, I suppose), without factoring in the commercial context (without which any patent system, the fabled Community Patent (20+ years in the making) and the question of a Community Patents Court, are completely, utterly and entirely irrelevant).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
