current posts | more recent posts | earlier posts Interesting book forthcoming - Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk by James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer.
First chapter can be read here.
I'm still not convinced by their obvious desire to link the concept of patents with real property, but the authors seem honest and upfront about examining the problems with the argument. Plus, some of their proposed reforms of the patent seem spot on - especially the notion of doing away with the judicial monopoly of the D.C.-based Federal Circuit that allows it (and only it) to interpret U.S. patent laws. This is a huge mistake that doesn't often get a lot of attention. [Posted at 03/12/2008 03:12 PM by Justin Levine on Patents (General) comments(6)] Forbes Magazine's online edition has a long article relating the well-known litany of stupid patents that the USPTO has granted, from those Jack-O-Lantern lawn leaf bags to the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It seems the message is finally starting to make inroads into the business commmunity. [Posted at 03/11/2008 01:14 PM by Stephen Spear on Patents (General) comments(0)] The GAO reports some impressive numbers on the USPTO link here and here and here. The latter plans to hire 1200 examiners a year for the next five years, but the backlog will increase to more than 1.3 million applications. If it could hire 2000 a year (presumably, it can't), the backlog would only increase by 260,000 to 953,643. So they are going to get the Patent Reform Act to slow the growth of the backlog.
Just thinking out loud, how can that be done? Any changes in patent law will almost certainly have to cover patents already granted. So depending on how they change the law, they may actually increase the backlog and/or the amount of litigation.
Talk about a broken system. [Posted at 02/28/2008 07:20 PM by John Bennett on Patents (General) comments(0)] Did Alexander Graham Bell really invent the telephone? I'm not sure, though he seems to have the patent. And without that, there would be no Big Telephone. The latest chapter in this story is a piece by Peter Carlson in the Washington Post which recounts some of the history link here. It doesn't, however, make the obvious point that our patent system has been broken for a long time, since 1876 in Bell's case. Patent fights aren't a recent development.
[Posted at 02/20/2008 07:29 PM by John Bennett on Patents (General) comments(0)] Patent Troll still anonymous provides a rundown on patent suits for the year against large companies like Microsoft. He then summarizes the situation thusly, "Before I give the list, my conclusions: patent litigation is out of control. Out of the top third of the companies in the Fortune 100 sued for patent infringement over the last two years (plus adding in Apple and Google), these 35 companies were sued 500 times in that two-year period! That's an average of over 14 times per company."
For more details, go to the Tracker's website for Dec 21 2007 link here. [Posted at 12/21/2007 05:23 PM by John Bennett on Patents (General) comments(0)] Behold the latest proof -
Patent lawyers started breathing again Wednesday, as the specter of new patent rules was chased away -- at least for a little while -- by a Virginia court.
U.S. District Judge James Cacheris granted pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from implementing rules set to go into effect today.
The new rules would reduce the number of claims, which help define a patent, and the number of continuations, which are used to amend patent claims and contest those that are rejected. Claims would be limited to 25, and continuations to just three. The current rules imposed no limits.
"I won't be alone in being among the patent attorneys who are very pleased with the injunction that was granted today," said Neil Smith, a veteran IP lawyer at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in San Francisco. "Anyone who cares about the strength of patents and about innovation itself saw those rules as causing some real problems -- it's a good day for the patent system."
The patent office says the rule changes are meant to speed up the patent process and eliminate the enormous backlog of applications. But opponents say the changes could weaken patents by not allowing sufficient continuances to cover ever-evolving innovations. They also say the new rules would have unfairly been retroactive on pending applications.
Notice how patent attorneys engage in Orewllian Newspeak talking about the "strength of patents" and "innovation". Always have to read between the lines with them - much like politicians.
Read the whole article here.
[Posted at 11/01/2007 04:11 PM by Justin Levine on Patents (General) comments(0)] Via Techdirt -
"Welcome to the lovely world of patent extortion, where the money from the practice is so lucrative that one of the highest paid lawyers at a top law firm would quietly license his patents to be used against his own firm's clients in exchange for a cut of the profits."
You have to read it to believe it. [Posted at 10/31/2007 12:33 PM by Justin Levine on Patents (General) comments(3)] Interesting paper by Hall and Ziedonis: my summary - firms can produce products or patent litigation, but not both. From a social point of view, it might be better if they focused on the former. [Posted at 10/27/2007 10:52 AM by David K. Levine on Patents (General) comments(1)] There was a fascinating panel of pharmaceutical patents yesterday evening. It was hard to walk away with the idea that they are a terribly good idea. It really seems that patents are not a subsidy for innovation, but rather a subsidy for marketing effort. I learned some interesting things I hadn't about how Hatch-Waxman works: there is five years protection independent of patent following successful clinical trials. After that firms face patent challenges - and it seems that generic producers have begun to very aggressively and successfully challenge patents after the five year period is over. The patent holders of course have various legal tricks they use to delay things, but basically I think this is good news. However, Hatch-Waxman applies only to chemical entities, not to biotech. Apparently there is a move in Congress to extend Hatch-Waxman to biotech - needless to say big pharam is aggressively opposing this, but it seems it may actually come off.
Basically five years monopoly is the reward for carrying out clinical trials that everyone can use for free. Left open is why other users of the clinical trials should get them for free; and why on earth we have the pharmaceutical companies carrying out the clinical trials in the first place. [Posted at 10/27/2007 09:18 AM by David K. Levine on Patents (General) comments(1)] Perhaps also not surprising, but still a very nicely done paper by Petra Moser: inventors patent things when they can't keep them secret. Not stunning support for the idea that patent systems are good because they get inventors to reveal their secrets. [Posted at 10/26/2007 04:33 PM by David K. Levine on Patents (General) comments(0)] current posts | more recent posts | earlier posts
|