Comments on: A proposed agenda for the ‘new patent reform’ http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/ Still clinging to first-to-invent Sun, 12 Oct 2008 03:11:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: MaxDrei http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-137 MaxDrei Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:23:01 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-137 French makes a good point, about the proportion of applications for protection that are "domestic", as opposed to "foreign". The pan-European design patent regime is new, and absurdly favourable to applicants, I think because politicians wanted to give European design innovators useful teeth against copyists. Fair enough, in the world as it was then, where those who apply for design patents are overwhelmingly "domestic". But, as it turns out, American and Asian companies are filing most of the EU design pat applns. How does it foster design innovation within European companies when the thickets are all "foreign" owned? Today, those same Euro politicians are shouting about the dangers of simpliying patent litigation arrangements in Europe, scared I suppose that all those "foreign" patent owners might actually enforce their rights. Seems to me that reformers of US patent law should seek balance between the rights of Applicants and the rights of their competitors, because US companies will just as likely be an accused infringer as a patent-owning plaintiff. French makes a good point, about the proportion of applications for protection that are “domestic”, as opposed to “foreign”. The pan-European design patent regime is new, and absurdly favourable to applicants, I think because politicians wanted to give European design innovators useful teeth against copyists. Fair enough, in the world as it was then, where those who apply for design patents are overwhelmingly “domestic”. But, as it turns out, American and Asian companies are filing most of the EU design pat applns. How does it foster design innovation within European companies when the thickets are all “foreign” owned? Today, those same Euro politicians are shouting about the dangers of simpliying patent litigation arrangements in Europe, scared I suppose that all those “foreign” patent owners might actually enforce their rights.

Seems to me that reformers of US patent law should seek balance between the rights of Applicants and the rights of their competitors, because US companies will just as likely be an accused infringer as a patent-owning plaintiff.

]]> By: David J. French http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-136 David J. French Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:07:38 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-136 David French writes: I experienced the patent law revision process in Canada during the 1970s and 1980s when over 95% of filings in Canada originated abroad. It is astounding to now see a US patent professional raise the possibility of even just reviewing alternatives to the present US patent system. I agree, such a fundamental review is justified. I believe that the world patent system, but particularly the US patent system, will soon be facing a "Great Reckoning". In our modern, fast-action economic system, intellectual-property rights in some cases give rise to astronomical profits. The "game" has become worldwide. In the United States the patent system will shortly be inundated by patent filings originating from abroad. Will responsible US legislators want to maintain a system in place which grants exclusive rights in 90% of inventions conceived worldwide to foreign resident inventors? A little over 100 years ago, the purpose of patent laws in many countries was to develop "new matter of manufacture" within the realm. It is appropriate to ask: "What is the purpose of patent laws today?" I congratulate Matt on his courage, creativity and initiative in making the above post. David French writes:

I experienced the patent law revision process in Canada during the 1970s and 1980s when over 95% of filings in Canada originated abroad. It is astounding to now see a US patent professional raise the possibility of even just reviewing alternatives to the present US patent system. I agree, such a fundamental review is justified.

I believe that the world patent system, but particularly the US patent system, will soon be facing a “Great Reckoning”. In our modern, fast-action economic system, intellectual-property rights in some cases give rise to astronomical profits. The “game” has become worldwide. In the United States the patent system will shortly be inundated by patent filings originating from abroad.

Will responsible US legislators want to maintain a system in place which grants exclusive rights in 90% of inventions conceived worldwide to foreign resident inventors?

A little over 100 years ago, the purpose of patent laws in many countries was to develop “new matter of manufacture” within the realm. It is appropriate to ask: “What is the purpose of patent laws today?”

I congratulate Matt on his courage, creativity and initiative in making the above post.

]]> By: MaxDrei http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-135 MaxDrei Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:27:31 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/a-proposed-agenda-for-the-new-patent-reform/581/#comment-135 When I read that a bunch of law professors are promulgating the idea that CAFC is bad, and progress in patent law is promoted better by a small number of Appeal Courts vying with each other for the best line of legal logic, it reminds me of the way patent law outside USA has progressed on a "Survival of the Fittest" path. I wonder whether USA, when putting its patent law under the microscope, is interested in standing on the shoulders of what has been accomplished thus far in ROW. In particular, I have in mind the patent law model developed in Europe 40 years ago by the fusion of those opposites, Germany and UK. One had English common law and peripheral claiming, the other civil law and central claiming. Even longer ago, Asia's countries took Germany as their model, while USA followed England. Thus, when Germany and UK filter out all that can't pass muster, and fuse their model, and it's a success, what more can one do, to promote the progress of patent law, than start from the EPC and fix any deficiencies you find. That's what territories like China and Eurasia have been doing. Why not USA too? When I read that a bunch of law professors are promulgating the idea that CAFC is bad, and progress in patent law is promoted better by a small number of Appeal Courts vying with each other for the best line of legal logic, it reminds me of the way patent law outside USA has progressed on a “Survival of the Fittest” path. I wonder whether USA, when putting its patent law under the microscope, is interested in standing on the shoulders of what has been accomplished thus far in ROW.

In particular, I have in mind the patent law model developed in Europe 40 years ago by the fusion of those opposites, Germany and UK. One had English common law and peripheral claiming, the other civil law and central claiming. Even longer ago, Asia’s countries took Germany as their model, while USA followed England. Thus, when Germany and UK filter out all that can’t pass muster, and fuse their model, and it’s a success, what more can one do, to promote the progress of patent law, than start from the EPC and fix any deficiencies you find.

That’s what territories like China and Eurasia have been doing. Why not USA too?

]]>