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.
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.
No, I believe it was Q.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.