Slashdot Mirror
Patent Attorneys Sued For Copyright Infringement
Zordak writes "Patent blogger Dennis Crouch writes on Patently-O of a catch-22 for attorneys. Patent attorneys are required to submit all prior art that they know of to the patent office. Failing to do so is an ethical violation, and can result in a patent being invalidated. But now the Hoboken Publishing Company and the American Institute of Physics are suing a major patent firm for copyright infringement, because they submit articles to the patent office without paying a separate royalty."
intellectual property all the way down...
What about any legal proceeding? I'm sure that there are countless instances of published works used in legal proceedings that aren't copyright related. Do the lawyers need to pay royalties for those as well? What a racket!
If we work on the basis that both patents and copyright exist as a tool to secure a public benefit — a somewhat old fashioned view, I admit, when copyright is increasingly seen as a goal in its own right — one would hope that, if there is a public benefit in the patent system, an appropriate exception to copyright law would be implemented, if not already in place.
This is not a catch-22, it's a cost of doing business. The lawyer needs to purchase the information for the application and failed to do so.
Of course it is interesting to see an Intellectual Property (IP) Lawyer fail to guard IP.
Sounds legit.
This makes my day! I hope the patent trolls lose everything over this.
Trolls trolling trolls.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
If there is prior art the patent is invalid anyway, isn't it?
No one is being sued because they included copyrighted material in a patent application, as the summary claims.
From the article, "Earlier this year, the US Patent Office issued a memo indicating its belief that copying and submitting copyrighted documents should be considered a non-actionable fair use."
The plaintiffs agree. Their complaint is that law firms make and distribute multiple copies of the copyrighted works used in the patent applications: "The crux of what our case deals with is the internal copying by the law firms after they have one copy in their hand. . . . Those copies are not licensed, and the patent office didn't take a position on whether or not fair use would apply to those copies."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
We heard you like suing people so we put a copyright in your patent process so you can be sued while you're suing.
Until we all realize that the only people winning in these lawsuits are the Lawyers. And don't we all hate lawyers equally?
Relevant publications have to be submitted by law. If they are in the file submitted anonymously, then I don't think that the applicant has to re-submit them. Or could submit them by reference to something in the file.
There is a similar situation where you receive a search report containing copyrighted articles.
For reasons of efficiency and cost, this should be solved at patent office level. Just raise the search fees a bit. If every patent attorney has to arrange for it, the cost gets excessive because of the administrative load (finding who to pay, how to pay, actually pay, monitor payment, and accounting).
Bert
My understanding is that you are required to cite any relevant patents or products, and explain how your patent is different.
Including an entire copy of the related prior art is not required for a patent submission; only the specifically-related fragments which would be covered by "fair use" are required. i.e. Specific quotes and citations, not entire texts.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1) Commit a crime
2) write a story about it
3) sue all witnessed of copyright infringement
4) profit
Hmm, using copyright law in the war against patents... I think I'm gonna patent that and then copyright the patent!
Read through the OP before summarizing somewhat sloppily, please! The publisher that's initiating this is John Wiley which is based in Hoboken, not named after Hoboken. Wiley is a major publishing house that most academics and many others will recognize. This move might remind you of Elsevier's role in the recently-pulled Research Works Act.
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
Seems like a good argument for eliminating both copyright and patents.
Don't stop where the ink does.
Don't file a lawsuit, submit an invoice!
Write a letter to the Patent office to notify copyright holders the actual usage of their work in patent applications so they can submit an invoice.
Wayyyy too much reliance on lawsuits first.
JJ
Patent lawyer vs. scientific journal. With all of the patent trolling going on it is easy to side with the journal, but they aren't as innocent as they seem.
... As long as the lawyers are getting paid.
The only thing worse than a lawyer is one that has become a judge.
1) i come in peace
...
2) If you want to challenge me to a spelling contest i suggest you look for another playmate
3) language is a living thing, people expressing themselves in new ways is what makes dictionaries grow and languages get richer, the dictionary does not dictate what the language is, nor does the gremmar commandments
4) If you're the kind of person that looks for structure in sentences other than the idea they express in order to reply you might probably have made a very good lawyer of the patent-troll-kind
i forgot and am now probably so much off-topic that i have once more marked myself as ultraflamebait
never mind...
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
"Don't Indulge in literature survey. If you don't know there was a prior-art you don't have to tell them"
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.