Slashdot Mirror
EU Patent Staff Go On Strike
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.
Some common sense comes into play! Hopefully something happens as a result of this.
It looks like /. is as incensed by this as the European patent staff. Maybe the commenters will return when their half-second strike is up.
wow...first comment?! If people haven't realized by now that unnecessary patents hamper innovation, they need to wake up. Common sense would be awesome if applied to the patent system - that would perhaps be the single best improvement in the system. Also, having patents summarized in plain English would be nice for small companies desiring to create products and solutions. If the people involved in the system acknowledge its flaws...you know it's well past time to do something, as many insiders prefer blissful ignorance.
Finally sheeple are becoming people it seems.
It was either Shakespeare of Family Guy that said that.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
. . . . . . no body . . . . .
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Furthermore, they've been harmful to innovation since they were introduced.
Of course the EPO staff are correct but the underlying issue runs much deeper. The first step in stopping patent expansion is to deal with the lawyers. These people contribute little to human knowledge and make a fortune gaming the system. Neither the public or fabled inventor benefits from having a legal tax on innovation.
Well done. now only if we could just beat some sense into their u.s. counterparts with a thick stick ...
Read radical news here
If they blow this, will we still have to hear about the superior wisdom of our sophisticated European Overlords?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I've posted on this before. The US program is designed to give the illusion that the patent office is really and truly trying to reform while in reality nothing changes. I'm too lazy to look up the last article on Slashdot about the US project, but if you crunch the numbers it's clear that fewer than 1% of submitted patents are even eligible for the program at all. A handful of patents will be rejected because of it, yes, but by and large the US patent office continues its work to let businesses patent everything possible.
Just ditch things that are older then 24 hours. That will save you a LOT of time. Perhaps even enough to read the article before writing and/or editing a summery.
Perhaps you could practise what you preach and check your own comments before submission.
Why do you have the "a" emphasized? "a lot" is the correct spelling, not "alot".
It is not just the patent office; it is the whole damn country.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
It might sound like a grass-roots scheme, and maybe it is, but those roots include such patent behemoths as IBM.
The patent system is quickly becoming a joke, and if that happens, IBM's patent portfolio is devalued. They also don't want to have to fight frivolous patents, so it's win-win for them. Plus, they've already helped themselves to the patent banquet to the point of morbid obesity. It's easy to shout "no more caviar!" at the party when your plate and belly are full.
Everyone wants 'opportunity for all'...until they've had theirs. Immigration and import policies the world over are also a great example of this.
Please help metamoderate.
I don't know how the patent system in the UK or other parts of the world work, but in my country (USA) it seems to me fundamentally all right, with four possible areas of necessary reform that I can see:
The patent system here isn't nearly as fuX0red up as copyright. Copyright reform is far more badly needed than patent reform.
Free Martian Whores!
It would help if the editors would proofread to avoid speling errors. (Mispelled on purpose)
You misspelled "porpoise". So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Free Martian Whores!
Actually these are bureaucrats refusing to do their master's bidding ... guess what their chances are ... I worked at the EU. The organisation isn't even democratic (the real power is in the hands of an unelected body, the european comission).
Any demands for accountability of the leaders will be shot down faster than it would have been in Iran, or on the Tiananmen square. The EU is all about how it looks. About the wages of the "fonctionnaires" (this is a word that will join a dictionary in 2050 with references to "fuhrer", "KGB", "SS" and "comissar"). It is european after all. Not about substance.
Complaining about substance will get you sued faster than saying "real prophets don't rape 6-year old girls" will get you killed in Iran, however true the claims may be.
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.
Note, this was a half-day strike, not ongoing.
While you were gone, I patented the process of returning to work after a strike.
You evidently were never proper introduced to Miss Alotta Fagina.
"If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
it wrong? When I first glanced at the title I thought it said "The EU Patented Strikes". I guess I need more coffee this morning.
He didn't use his alotted fifteen minutes of fame?
Free Martian Whores!
The European Patent Office (EPO) is not an EU body. The EU has no direct control over it and precious little indirect control. Of course the big countries in the EU are also the big countries involved with the EPO so patent policy between the bodies rarely deviates spectacularly.
And "misspelled" ...
Sadly, there seems to be far more incentive to obfuscate what the patent is actually saying. Either so you can claim it covers almost any conceivable scenario, or so that nobody can identify that you're patenting something trivial and obvious.
Most patent summaries I've ever seen read as bad (if not worse) than legal documents. It also seems the more trivial the patent, the more ridiculous the verbiage.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How the hell is pointing out an editor's error in the summary offtopic? It must be stupid moderator week here on Slashdot.
That was on porpoise too!
Free Martian Whores!
Sorry, I'm waiting for the sequel, "EU Patent Staff Goes to France".
http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-90354/epo-examiners-take-the-streets-in-brussels-asking-to-save-the-epo
http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-89228/epo-examiners-do-not-trust-brimelow-for-her-quality-reforms
http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-87284/examiners-to-demonstrate-against-broken-governance-of-the-epo-next-18th-september-in-brussels
Naff all.
The little guy is better off getting an NDA (and sending that NDA to the courts as proof of it) and going to a company to get it made than getting a patent.
If the company waits 14 years (or 7 with no renewal) they get to use the patent now with no problems. AND they get to patent adjustments to it!
Whereas an NDA never expires. The company would have to wait until someone else invented it and rip THAT one off.
Actually these are bureaucrats refusing to do their master's bidding ... guess what their chances are ... I worked at the EU. The organisation isn't even democratic (the real power is in the hands of an unelected body, the european comission).
The EU commission president is suggested by the heads of the governments of the member states (all democratically elected), and has to be approved by the European Parliament (democratically elected). The commission president then selects his commissioners, then the commission has to be approved again by the parliament. How is that not democratic?
I'm not saying it's perfect (few things in the EU as in many other institutions are), especially I think it's a shame that the EP can only reject the complete commission, not individual commissioners, bust seriously... not democratic? Are in your home country all ministers elected directly by the people - individually?
And saying that the commission is "the real power"... the commission can draft laws which they can suggest to the parliament and the council (which consists of the national governments). You make its sound like they run the EU alone...
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.
I've got mod points you insensitive clod!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Which seems to be a more modern phenomena. I've seen some of the old patents from BBC Research they were written as clearly as possible and with all relevant detail. They were apparently told to do this so that if a case came to court it would be easy to explain the content to a jury, who are unlikely to be technically minded.
Thank god we have lawyers these days who can translate all the obfuscation for us, and hence patents can be completely unreadable.
The bad verbage of patents is not necessarily the patent writer's fault. When I tried to submit a patent, it came back three times demanding that I rewrite it until it made no sense. Then, it was denied because I used the phrase "A person may use..." instead of "A person can use...". In patent-speak, the word "may" means "may not". So, I applied for a patent for an idea that people may not use.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
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.
...rather than trying to shoehorn loads of software patents into a system where they have no place.
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.
Patents cost WAY too much. It is virtually impossible for a middle class person to obtain a patent on anything.
So it's alright if a working class person (or whatever you term someone who earns less than the middle class) can't afford a patent?
The EPO half-day strike demonstrates the gaining momentum of supporters of patent reform at a fundamental level. The public's burden, while more diffuse, is equally as important as the public is burdened with the costs of monopolistic pricing, exclusion from areas of R&D due to overly broad patents and the public cost of increased litigation. I applaud Peer-to-Patent. There finally is a mechanism for the private sector to weigh in on the grant of rights to which they are subjected. I also believe that the same collective intelligence as the foundation of peertopatent needs to be employed to increase participation with the platform. And once there is a trackable impact from the work of peertopatent, more people will become involved. Better patent quality is something everyone can agree on. The public and private sectors are coming together on this topic, which is vital to the efficacy of innovation worldwide. I welcome the opinions of others. Cheryl Milone www.articleonepartners.com
Just one minor correction: EPC, not EC. EC is the European Community, EPC is the European Patent Convention. Cheers for the explanation though. :)
I want to know what a limited-time strike is supposed to achieve. Its persuasive power is comparable to that of Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
Today's states are already too big to be truly democratic even in the legislative realm (because the economy, education, army, police, ... are totally undemocratic to begin with.) With a superleviathan like the EU, government becomes so removed from the people that lobbyism and the inner dynamics of bureaucracy are far more influential than the popular will. Contracts between governments creepingly supersede national law and even national constitutions. They even tried to force a "European constitution" on us without allowing most of the citizens to vote on it. How is that democratic? No wonder most people don't vote in EP elections. They know that parliament is a joke.
Actually, the parliament has some influence,and it would have gained much more by the "constitution".
I agree that large states become less democratic in the sense that the people in power get inevitably more removed from the people. This is why I strongly believe in a federal system. I also believe that the EU is a good thing in principle, though one should be careful when deciding what really needs to be handled on EU level, or rather national level or even lower.
Switzerland surely is a nice example of a very direct democracy, but I guess it won't work so well on larger scale.
As is often the case, Europe is a few decades behind the US. You can expect the patent system to deteriorate in Europe until whatever the fix that the US comes up with will be adopted in Europe as well.
The commission holds the executive power within the EU structure, apart from their role in the legislative process. And they have both monopoly on suggesting items and veto against changes, so bills can not be passed against them.
And from a practical perspective they are elected through enough layers to make input from ordinary citizens near impossible. The executives of the EU countries (some direct, some indirect elected) gathers and presents a complete commission. The EP can complain and sometimes the council actually changes one candidate, but the real decisions are made without public input.
To test it I propose the following: Say that you think they are clowns and should be replaced. Now in most systems it is fairly straightforward what you do, you vote for the other clowns next time around. So what do you vote for and in which election to choose the other clowns for the EU commission?
Translation for americans: this would be like your governors meeting and dividing up the federal cabinett - if your guy gets to be president, mine gets to be secretary of state - and then proposing the whole as a set to congress for approval.
If this is democracy it is for a rather low value of the word.
I know people (engineers) that work at the EPO in Munich, Germany:
- they don't pay the normal German income tax (I don't know the exact figures but ~5000 Euro net pay per month is not uncommon if you have a few years experience)
- they're workload is ridiculous compared to normal companies
When I came to work to Germany (some years ago) as an engineer, EPO was the holy grail that lots of other engineers were aiming for... people that studied languages after their normal job because THAT was THE hard requirement to get to the EPO (need to understand/speak English, German and French).
Moving them to local patent offices will at least have them pay the full taxes, that's what they're scared of!
On the other side if they're not going to be completely absorbed in the local structures they've to put themselves on the market and, I fear, it's not easy to get similar working conditions and pay.
Ehmm. But doesn't the European Patent Organisation reside outside the European Union? ...in Munich, the city of the movement....
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.
It is standard scientific writing practice to explain experiments actually performed in the past tense and to explain thought experiments in the present tense. This distinction is not minor. The reason is, of course, that unless something has been empirically tested, no matter how obvious it may seem, one cannot be sure of the result.
The solution is to specify whether what is being discussed is an experiment that was actually performed or a thought experiment by saying something like, "We performed the following experiment", or "If one were to perform the following experiment".
This is very difficult for non-native English speakers to understand.
Having direct election of the executive would be a massive no here in the UK because all the tabloids would start banging on about how the EU is trying to become a proper federal democracy like the USA. I suppose it's also something that the governments of most member states would be keen to avoid because it could be a challange to their own mandates.
I think all the leaders in Europe find it convenient to have the EU around to blame whenever they all need to do something bad - not that I can actually think of anything truly terrible inflicted on me by the EU mind, it's just all the headlines fade into a general anti-EU fuzz. The main job of the EU is regulating the common market (boring, uncontroversial stuff like what constitutes a fire door) and administering various federal subsidies.
Member states are in full control of this process. For all the talk of a Constitution, all the decisions that really matter to the states occur as a consensus; powers regarding taxes and the military are reserved by states. The real democratic balance is the European Parliament who prevent our leaders from collectively having too much power.
Nick