EU Patent Staff Go On Strike 116
h4rm0ny writes "Last Friday, staff at the European Patent Office went on strike. They protested outside for several hours and issued a statement claiming that 'the organisation is decentralising and focusing on granting as many patents as possible to gain financially from fees generated.' They also declared this as being disastrous for innovation and that their campaign was not for better wages, but for better quality patents.
Meanwhile, an article on it discusses the US's own approach to dealing with the increasing flood of patent applications: a community patent project to help identify prior art. It might sound like a grass-roots scheme, and maybe it is, but those roots include such patent behemoths as IBM. So it looks like on both sides of the Atlantic, some signs of sanity might be emerging in the patent world from those people right in the thick of it." Note, this was a half-day strike, not ongoing.
Re:The US program is a sham (Score:2, Informative)
If you believe the hype on slashdot, maybe. In real life the PTO actually denies a lot of patents. A friend of mine is a patent lawyer and her job would be a lot easier if the PTO actually did accept everything, but they most assuredly do not.
Respect (Score:3, Informative)
Commendable behavior on their part for actually standing up for what's right and not pulling the douchebag move of trying to milk more money out of it for themselves.
Re:Do we need patents at all? (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding patent fees, please look at the fee schedule [uspto.gov]. For a small entity filing an electronic application with = 20 claims and = 3 independent claims, the total fee examination fee is $435. If the application is allowed, the issue fee is $720. There are maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years that are $465, $1180, and $1955 respectively. By the time the third year arrives, the assignee would know if the patent should be maintained. This is affordable to a middle class person/small entity.
Re:Finally - Common Sense! (Score:3, Informative)
Good shot, but wrong! The EPO is not a subsidiary of the EC, it is not EU. The signatory states are not identical to the states of the EU.
The EPO has its own constitution, own salary scheme, own working regulations.
Not that I'd question your general line of arguments, just to be correct on the dot.
Re:Patents were always a money making scam (Score:3, Informative)
Women were not eligible to receive patents in the early U.S., and Greene may have asked Whitney to obtain it for her.
not that patents are bad, but that she was ineligible to patent it herself. Besides if you are going to lift text from Wikipedia without citation, try doing so and maintaining context. The rest of that section goes on to indicate that Whitney did invent the Cotton Gin.
While the Watkins story had some romantic adherents, and still others have credited Hodgson Holmes, later publication of certain of Whitney's papers, including letters to his family during the invention process, showed the claims to be lacking foundation.
Many people attempted to develop a design that would process short staple cotton and Holmes was indeed issued a patent for an "Improvement in the Cotton Gin". However, the evidence indicates that Whitney did invent the saw gin, for which he is famous. Although he spent many years in court attempting to enforce his patent against planters who made unauthorized copies, a change in patent law ultimately made his claim legally enforceableâ"too late for him to make much money off of the device in the single year remaining before patent expiration.[3]
Wikipedia.org
Re:Finally - Common Sense! (Score:4, Informative)
I think you misunderstood the explanation. It's a little more complicated than saying "may" means "may not". Using the phrase "a person may use X" implies that the person ALSO "may not use X" and still perform the invention. In other words it implies that the feature is optional.
Patents are legal documents and in the same way contracts use strange legal speak, patents use legal language so that there is no doubt what they claim. While it may look like obfuscation when read properly they are actually quite clear.
Re:Finally - Common Sense! (Score:5, Informative)
Patent agent here.
An abstract is a requirement. An applicant has to provide one. If there is something wrong in the application and correct in the abstract, the applicant is not allowed to rely on the abstract to fix the error in the application. Guess what, patent agents spend as little time on the abstract as possible. Personaly, I appreciate clear abstracts, so I may tend to do a bit better than average, but still it isn't at the top of my priority list. Having said that, I never propose a drawing to go with the abstract, as that involves more work (providing reference numerals etc.). Sincere apologies to the rest of the world. During the PCT phase, the Examiner often picks one, and adds the numbers. Thanks.
As to clarity of the application. Unfortunately stupid US case law (which stupid people from a country that shall not be named defend, because doing otherwise would be probably considered unpatriotic, or something) favours unclarity and incompleteness. (It is like that famous: "Everything you say can and will be held against you?". ). A US patent claim is like a bag of loose wrist watch parts. A (proper) European claim details the relationship between the parts. Such a claim is harder to write, and leads in the US to more problems. Guess what US patent agents do?
There are even courses for European patent agent to learn how to write obfuscated claims for the US. I refuse to give in, and try to write my claims as clear as possible. The patent system is a deal between society and an inventor, where the inventor reveals his invention in return for an exclusive right for a limited-time. I make this clear to my clients and the invention is written down with that in mind.
If my sticking to clarity means I overlook something and it falls outside the scope of protection, too bad. I hope my approach protects my clients from unnecessary lawsuits where they have to prove that something is within the scope of their poorly-written claim or some scumbag thinks he can reason himself out of the scope. So far, no lawsuits (I don't want to imply that all my claims were so well drafted to have had this effect. Perhaps I - and my clients - were just fortunate).
Bert
Examples of silly US things:
If you describe an experiment in past tense, you have performed it. If you write it in present tense, you haven't. Uhm, how does this writing in present tense undo the fact that an applicant actually performed the experiments, again?
If you discuss literature, you admit that it is prior art. Well, everything before the filing date is prior art, isn't it, so what is the problem? Oh, you mean relevant prior art limiting the scope of my claims? Well, what I write and read in a particular publication KNOWING THE INVENTION OF MY CLIENT isn't necessarily the same as what a person skilled in the art at the time of filing would read in that publication. In the US, you have conceded that it is known. In Europe, you can get back from what you said earlier (if there is a fair reason for that). In Europe: If I said that I saw Jesus yesterday, and today I say I was mistaken, it is OK if now stick to the latter. In the US it is solid legal proof that Jesus was here yesterday. Sigh.