FYI: opposition fee @ the EPO is only EUR 610. I do not know about attorney fees, but probably from EUR 4000 and up, depending on the location of your attorney as well (trips to Munich may be costly; fees are not the same all around Europe).
At last count, less than 20 inter-partes reexams had been filed since 1999.
Seems low to me. Any reason for that? I have asked US colleagues to go for a re-issue sometimes in the past. Is that the same as re-exam? I can imagine that if so, there is a number of ex parte proceedings.
But anyway, I would expect the number of inter-partes a lot higher. Especially taking into account all the issues with the patents about which a lot of people at Slashdot complain.
The industry only dislikes SOME software patents, while anyone who cares to look will see that all software patents threaten innovation and are largely anti-competitive because they rig the game in favor of big corporations.
I do not entirely agree with you. Minor companies can play that game as well and perhaps even better. When a minor company has a patent on a groundbreaking (or little less) invention, it can be a major pain in the *rse of a big company(with a proper sponsoring for the small one, ok), especially when that small company has no product portfolio to which the big company can assert its patents.
Just think about Intertrust vs. Microsoft (settled out of court).
With respect to the part of your story with which I might (yeah, I'm a legal techie) agree: When major companies block the small ones from sales + development of certain software and bind them with strangling contracts (give us all your IP or we will break your back with our IP), yes, patents are not very good things and will surely suffocate innovation.
But at long as licenses are available under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, I do not see any problems.
One of the most important conclusions I draw from this issue that it is time for a proper inter partes opposition procedure as available in - among others - Europe and Japan.
After grant of a patent, any person (in Europe, this does not include the patent proprietor) can challenge the granted patent with all prior art available. And this person is party to the proceedings; the European Patent Office coordinates the procedure and judges it. Remark to be made here is that in first instance, the EPO is not very willing to revoke a patent (the examiner of the grant procedure is in the opposition division as well), but appeal may be a good remedy.
I heard that the US patent law may be amended to allow inter partes proceedings for invalidation/re-examination. Any news on that?
One of the big issues here as well is the high cost of legislation in the US and the lack of a decent opposition system like it is available with the European Patent Office.
The first point is not very easy to tackle, a lot of costs are put in the 'discovery' of every lawsuit. A US (patent attorney) colleague of mine said that that will not go away in the near future.
By means of example: a patent lawsuit in the Netherlands will cost you kEUR 20-50. At most. Germany, where you may have a little more quality, think about a factor 2-4 higher.
The second point should be easy to implement. Just copy the European Patent Convention, German Patent Law, Japanese patent law (based on the German patent law) or something alike. This system means you can kill the patent after granting with prior art. In an inter partes proceeding, which means you, as a person, will be a pary in the proceedings.
5795156 is a divisional of an application filed in 1994, and so are all others except 5597307 wich has been filed May 11 1995. (ok, there's also a lot of continuation stuff, which might be an indication that the patent was not granted that easily)
For prior art, you have to search back before July 1 1994.
The last thing George and Company need in an election year is another story that paints him as pandering to a particular company.
Well, there's still the export benefit from the US government for US companies, including Microsoft. The EU is not happy with that and it's quite probable that there are going to be penalty fees for import of that kind of products.
But for a lot of products, you already know who the victims will be. Not the companies...
Over the past time, I've noticed more and more news coming from Australia that Australia will comply with US economical requirements, as the US is a very important trade partner for Australia. What if George W. ask Mr. Howard nicely to implement US software in all government applications?
Fortunately, on the other hand more and more government institutions give Linux a fair chance as well in competing with Microsoft and especially on the cost side, Linux (and other open source) wins! (Community of Munich, Amsterdam is considering it and I bet there are more examples)
About time, I could really welcome a tax cut. I hate to lose my tax money on Microsoft.
Apparently, it is. Nice step, they lost all their anti-trust defences
Didn't they initially claim that all functionality had to be in their to provide a proper functionning OS? And that therefore, MS/Windows could not be split up?
Food for thought for the EU in the MS anti-trust case. Go Mario.
The patent is a divisional, filed after June 1995, with a first filing date of 3 August 1989. This patent ends 3 August 2009, AFAIK.
Apparently, it took them a long while before they knew what to claim. It surprises me they did not file a continuation in part (for which addition of subject matter with respect to the first filing is alllowed) but a divisional (for which this is not allowed; at least not in Europe).
But hey, they sued the best in class, when the patent is tricky (added stuff etc.), the companies sued surely will blow it to bits. Especially Sony and Matsushita are no fools with patents.
And if I were Jeff Wallin, I'd sue computer manufacturers as well instead of processor manufacturers. 10% Royalty over a computer is significantly more than 10% royalty over a processor.
However, the article says that the "Anton pilar order" is there to enter a premises to seize material that infringes copyright.
I don't think the police will find any material that infringes copyright in the Australian office of Sharman. I looks more like a fishing expedition and, most likely, a way to annoy Sharman. Pityfull people...
But hey, Australia has said before they would copy US patent policy when the US would ask them to do so (US did, so Australia did what was aksed), as the US is the most important trade partner for Australia. The same might apply here.
Background info:
In Belgium and France, it's possible to enter premises as well to look for patent infringement, but the party who initiates the proceedings is *not* allowed to enter the premises! Only a bailiff and often an independent expert (patent attorney to neither party) and sometimes a police officer (called Saisie Contrefac,on). Could this be a deriverative of that?
Can the original poster provide the patent number?
RTFA
Solitaire might have existed before computers, but it's still a valid patent when applied to a version for a computer.
Well, in Australia perhaps. In Europe, it's lack of inventive step (obviousness). The invention does not provide a further technical effect; unpatentable subject matter (card playing game) is added to a computer.
Furthermore, the claim (18) is directed to playing the card game, not towards the computer, as you could have read from the original article.
Likewise, if the patent is for solitaire on desktop computers then there is room for someone else to get a patent for solitaire for handheld computers.
No. Desktop computers are a neighbouring field for handheld computers. Applying a teaching of a neighbouring technical field to your technical field to achieve the same effect yields an invention that lacks an inventive step and that invention is therefore not patentable.
Sorry to say, but at least for Europe, you're wrong. And probably for US as well, but I'm not going to burn my fingers on that.
In Australia (like France and the Netherlands, by the way), you can get a patent for everything, as it does not get examined. Until you're in court sueing a possible infringer, that is. At that moment, validity of the patent will still be examined when challenged (in NL, at least).
So, in my opinion, you're quite wrong in the first paragraph of your posting.
When this would be a European (i.e. European Patent Convention member state) patent, it would have been an easy nut for me to crack. Playing games is excluded from patenting.
However, it's a US patent, which makes it a little more difficult.
What to do?
Tell the other party that he merely has a claim (18) aimed at a card playing game (solitaire) that already existed at the filing date and that the claim lacks novelty.
Perhaps he is able to amend the claim to a computer programmed to let a user play the game which might make the claim novel, but I'd say that's a claim directed at obvious subject matter.
Next, there's the Gilette defence:
Would it, at the date of filing be obvious to implement solitaire in a computer programme? If so (which is the case IMO), than you can't infringe the claim *or* the claim is invalid: a claim cannot be stretched to cover something that was known/obvious at the date of filing.
You can order the file wrapper with the USPTO, info is at their homepage. My US colleagues do this regularly, AFAIK it's no problem. This may help you to see how broad the claim can be interpreted.
This is of course no legal advice, as I am not a US patent attorney.
EPC (European Patent Convention) by Singer/Stauder.
You don't need to know US law, your patent will be issued anyway.:-P The only thing you need is a good mouth: according to my colleagues in the US, you can work it all out during an interview.
Wow. That's nice. I had the same with Delft University of Technology. But what you mention is no prior art.
Prior art would be e-mail brakes@hio.hen.nl and url (www.)brakes.hio.hen.nl.
BTW, I am amazed this kind of patent can be granted in the US. I wonder if they even tried to get a patent in Europe, let's check... Nope, apparently, they're not that stupid. They European Patent Office would probably not even search for prior art, let alone examine whether a patent could be granted.
and yes, Virginia, this means DVD back-up is fully legal in Norway.
And apparently, circumvention of encryption for that purpose is legal as well.
Under old law, that is. Norway, as an EFTA (European Free Trade Association) member is obliged to implement some EU legislation like the European Copyright Directive related to aspects of the Information Society.
This piece of law requires local governments to implement in national legislation that circumvention of copyright protection is illegal. And it was not implemented at the date of the alledged (but apparently not committed) crime.
So although this has been an interesting case, it seems rather irrelevant to me for the future of DeCSS.
In summary: No appeal. So what? We're right back at the start.
As far as I know, this is the first time record companies are being sued for this issue (which is a good thing to do, IMO).
The first question is: can we expect a landmark decision here?
Yes, I think we can. Like with the Kazaa case in The Netherlands, people will most probably be looking forward to the outcome of this case. Furthermore, legal decisions in a civil case can be enforced all around Europe (when decided for those countries) by means of the Brussels and Lugano conventions.
Next question: how soon will there be a decision?
In a long, long time, probably. When I take my teachers seriously (best of the best of dutch IP lawyers), lawsuits can take years in Belgium, depending on the cravings of the judge. When it's a good day for hunting, you're lost.
However, I do not want to copy this statement directly. Perhaps there's someone from Belgium to throw some light on this case?
No point making software illegal. The concept is out there, and not so hard to implement, so stopping Kazaa is just like taking a cup of water out of the sea and hoping that you'll stop the tides. So kudos to the court, who are dead right.
Well, that was not the reasoning of the court. The case in first instance was that the copyright association should continue talks with Kazaa on how to tackle copyright fees. Some people think the associations stopped the talks under pressure of the RIAA. The case has been started by Kazaa.
The reaction of the copyright association was that Kazaa should modify it's programme so it could discriminate non-infrining content from infringing content.
Well, we all know how to toggle the MP3 copyright bit.
In first instance, Kazaa was ordered to stop distribution, the judge (only one, as it was a provisional decision) thought that it would be best not to distribute the programme at all. This was considered as a less-invasive decision than a software modification.
The court of appeal ruled different and also stressed the possibilities of non-infringing use. They have provided a well founded decision, in my opinion. Therefore, going to the supreme court to send the case back to the court of appeal was very difficult and indeed, the advocat general (who prepares the decision of the Supreme Court) has shredded the request of BUMA/STEMRA.
With respect to continuation of the talks between BUMA/STEMRA: Kazaa has dropped their charges.
As far as I know, there are on-line translation programmes that understand Dutch. Good Luck.
And thank you for the subject of this thread! Hahaha!
Slashdot Mirror
With no strong IPR legislation, some countries may not provide export/import benefits to Australia.
I've read "somewhere" that Australia adapted it's IPR legislation to the US, as the US is one of the most important trade partners.
This issue should be taken into account as well. Anyway, with respect to this specific issues, Australia is not in a favourable position, IMHO.
FYI: opposition fee @ the EPO is only EUR 610. I do not know about attorney fees, but probably from EUR 4000 and up, depending on the location of your attorney as well (trips to Munich may be costly; fees are not the same all around Europe).
Seems low to me. Any reason for that? I have asked US colleagues to go for a re-issue sometimes in the past. Is that the same as re-exam? I can imagine that if so, there is a number of ex parte proceedings.
But anyway, I would expect the number of inter-partes a lot higher. Especially taking into account all the issues with the patents about which a lot of people at Slashdot complain.
I do not entirely agree with you. Minor companies can play that game as well and perhaps even better. When a minor company has a patent on a groundbreaking (or little less) invention, it can be a major pain in the *rse of a big company(with a proper sponsoring for the small one, ok), especially when that small company has no product portfolio to which the big company can assert its patents.
Just think about Intertrust vs. Microsoft (settled out of court).
With respect to the part of your story with which I might (yeah, I'm a legal techie) agree: When major companies block the small ones from sales + development of certain software and bind them with strangling contracts (give us all your IP or we will break your back with our IP), yes, patents are not very good things and will surely suffocate innovation.
But at long as licenses are available under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, I do not see any problems.
After grant of a patent, any person (in Europe, this does not include the patent proprietor) can challenge the granted patent with all prior art available. And this person is party to the proceedings; the European Patent Office coordinates the procedure and judges it.
Remark to be made here is that in first instance, the EPO is not very willing to revoke a patent (the examiner of the grant procedure is in the opposition division as well), but appeal may be a good remedy.
I heard that the US patent law may be amended to allow inter partes proceedings for invalidation/re-examination. Any news on that?
The first point is not very easy to tackle, a lot of costs are put in the 'discovery' of every lawsuit. A US (patent attorney) colleague of mine said that that will not go away in the near future.
By means of example: a patent lawsuit in the Netherlands will cost you kEUR 20-50. At most. Germany, where you may have a little more quality, think about a factor 2-4 higher.
The second point should be easy to implement. Just copy the European Patent Convention, German Patent Law, Japanese patent law (based on the German patent law) or something alike. This system means you can kill the patent after granting with prior art. In an inter partes proceeding, which means you, as a person, will be a pary in the proceedings.
No, I do not think so. I don't think the EPO will change its granting policy just because the EU (totally different organisation) changes its policy.
Furthermore, Microsoft only filed an application in the US, not in Europe. Perhaps they're smart after all.
Therefore, I don not think the results properly reflect the actual situation.
5795156 is a divisional of an application filed in 1994, and so are all others except 5597307 wich has been filed May 11 1995.
(ok, there's also a lot of continuation stuff, which might be an indication that the patent was not granted that easily)
For prior art, you have to search back before July 1 1994.
Well, there's still the export benefit from the US government for US companies, including Microsoft. The EU is not happy with that and it's quite probable that there are going to be penalty fees for import of that kind of products.
But for a lot of products, you already know who the victims will be. Not the companies...
Fortunately, on the other hand more and more government institutions give Linux a fair chance as well in competing with Microsoft and especially on the cost side, Linux (and other open source) wins! (Community of Munich, Amsterdam is considering it and I bet there are more examples)
About time, I could really welcome a tax cut. I hate to lose my tax money on Microsoft.
Didn't they initially claim that all functionality had to be in their to provide a proper functionning OS? And that therefore, MS/Windows could not be split up?
Food for thought for the EU in the MS anti-trust case. Go Mario.
Oh yeah, forgot the blabla: I am no US patent attorney, so my other posting was no legal opinion.
US5809336
US5784584
US5659703
And two (ground) radar stuff.
The patent is a divisional, filed after June 1995, with a first filing date of 3 August 1989. This patent ends 3 August 2009, AFAIK.
Apparently, it took them a long while before they knew what to claim. It surprises me they did not file a continuation in part (for which addition of subject matter with respect to the first filing is alllowed) but a divisional (for which this is not allowed; at least not in Europe).
But hey, they sued the best in class, when the patent is tricky (added stuff etc.), the companies sued surely will blow it to bits. Especially Sony and Matsushita are no fools with patents.
And if I were Jeff Wallin, I'd sue computer manufacturers as well instead of processor manufacturers. 10% Royalty over a computer is significantly more than 10% royalty over a processor.
However, the article says that the "Anton pilar order" is there to enter a premises to seize material that infringes copyright.
I don't think the police will find any material that infringes copyright in the Australian office of Sharman. I looks more like a fishing expedition and, most likely, a way to annoy Sharman. Pityfull people...
But hey, Australia has said before they would copy US patent policy when the US would ask them to do so (US did, so Australia did what was aksed), as the US is the most important trade partner for Australia. The same might apply here.
Background info:
In Belgium and France, it's possible to enter premises as well to look for patent infringement, but the party who initiates the proceedings is *not* allowed to enter the premises! Only a bailiff and often an independent expert (patent attorney to neither party) and sometimes a police officer (called Saisie Contrefac,on). Could this be a deriverative of that?
RTFA
Solitaire might have existed before computers, but it's still a valid patent when applied to a version for a computer.
Well, in Australia perhaps. In Europe, it's lack of inventive step (obviousness). The invention does not provide a further technical effect; unpatentable subject matter (card playing game) is added to a computer.
Furthermore, the claim (18) is directed to playing the card game, not towards the computer, as you could have read from the original article.
Likewise, if the patent is for solitaire on desktop computers then there is room for someone else to get a patent for solitaire for handheld computers.
No. Desktop computers are a neighbouring field for handheld computers. Applying a teaching of a neighbouring technical field to your technical field to achieve the same effect yields an invention that lacks an inventive step and that invention is therefore not patentable.
Sorry to say, but at least for Europe, you're wrong. And probably for US as well, but I'm not going to burn my fingers on that.
In Australia (like France and the Netherlands, by the way), you can get a patent for everything, as it does not get examined. Until you're in court sueing a possible infringer, that is. At that moment, validity of the patent will still be examined when challenged (in NL, at least).
So, in my opinion, you're quite wrong in the first paragraph of your posting.
But also bear in mind that probably 80% of the patents will never be used.
However, it's a US patent, which makes it a little more difficult.
What to do?
Tell the other party that he merely has a claim (18) aimed at a card playing game (solitaire) that already existed at the filing date and that the claim lacks novelty.
Perhaps he is able to amend the claim to a computer programmed to let a user play the game which might make the claim novel, but I'd say that's a claim directed at obvious subject matter.
Next, there's the Gilette defence:
Would it, at the date of filing be obvious to implement solitaire in a computer programme? If so (which is the case IMO), than you can't infringe the claim *or* the claim is invalid: a claim cannot be stretched to cover something that was known/obvious at the date of filing.
You can order the file wrapper with the USPTO, info is at their homepage. My US colleagues do this regularly, AFAIK it's no problem. This may help you to see how broad the claim can be interpreted.
This is of course no legal advice, as I am not a US patent attorney.
You don't need to know US law, your patent will be issued anyway. :-P
The only thing you need is a good mouth: according to my colleagues in the US, you can work it all out during an interview.
Prior art would be e-mail brakes@hio.hen.nl and url (www.)brakes.hio.hen.nl.
BTW, I am amazed this kind of patent can be granted in the US. I wonder if they even tried to get a patent in Europe, let's check...
Nope, apparently, they're not that stupid. They European Patent Office would probably not even search for prior art, let alone examine whether a patent could be granted.
So why does Dolby innovate? To sell patent licenses. And I know more companies who do so.
'nuff said.
Sure. Ever tried to compare production cost of a VHS tape (with all the tiny mechanical components) to the production cost of a pressed DVD?
(solely) Considering that, VHS should be 50% more expensive than DVD instead of the other way around as in daily practise.
And apparently, circumvention of encryption for that purpose is legal as well.
Under old law, that is. Norway, as an EFTA (European Free Trade Association) member is obliged to implement some EU legislation like the European Copyright Directive related to aspects of the Information Society.
This piece of law requires local governments to implement in national legislation that circumvention of copyright protection is illegal. And it was not implemented at the date of the alledged (but apparently not committed) crime.
So although this has been an interesting case, it seems rather irrelevant to me for the future of DeCSS.
In summary: No appeal. So what? We're right back at the start.
The first question is: can we expect a landmark decision here?
Yes, I think we can. Like with the Kazaa case in The Netherlands, people will most probably be looking forward to the outcome of this case. Furthermore, legal decisions in a civil case can be enforced all around Europe (when decided for those countries) by means of the Brussels and Lugano conventions.
Next question: how soon will there be a decision?
In a long, long time, probably. When I take my teachers seriously (best of the best of dutch IP lawyers), lawsuits can take years in Belgium, depending on the cravings of the judge. When it's a good day for hunting, you're lost.
However, I do not want to copy this statement directly. Perhaps there's someone from Belgium to throw some light on this case?
Well, that was not the reasoning of the court. The case in first instance was that the copyright association should continue talks with Kazaa on how to tackle copyright fees. Some people think the associations stopped the talks under pressure of the RIAA. The case has been started by Kazaa.
The reaction of the copyright association was that Kazaa should modify it's programme so it could discriminate non-infrining content from infringing content.
Well, we all know how to toggle the MP3 copyright bit.
In first instance, Kazaa was ordered to stop distribution, the judge (only one, as it was a provisional decision) thought that it would be best not to distribute the programme at all. This was considered as a less-invasive decision than a software modification.
The court of appeal ruled different and also stressed the possibilities of non-infringing use. They have provided a well founded decision, in my opinion. Therefore, going to the supreme court to send the case back to the court of appeal was very difficult and indeed, the advocat general (who prepares the decision of the Supreme Court) has shredded the request of BUMA/STEMRA.
With respect to continuation of the talks between BUMA/STEMRA: Kazaa has dropped their charges.
As far as I know, there are on-line translation programmes that understand Dutch. Good Luck.
And thank you for the subject of this thread! Hahaha!