Talk:Patent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] European Patents

This is Boundlessly Talk . I'm coming from the perspective of an intellectual property attorney who advises/negotiates on U.S. and multinational licensing and/or corporate merger/acquisition issues. The material I added on EPC, PCT and territorial effect of a patent are issues that come up all the time in my practice (my rule-of-thumb for relevance is "If I've encountered the issue for a paying client at least twice in the last few years, it's Wiki-able.") I'm only licensed to practice in the U.S., though I deal extensively with European patents, and I've gotten lots of second-hand advice from my European collegues and from treatises. The two folks who are most adamant about reverting my work out - EdColins and Kcordina - what's your perspective? What are the bases for your opinions on what belongs here and what doesn't? (Do either of you have practical experience in the full economic life process of patents that would give you a reliable basis to determine "If an edit does not improve an article" before you are "bold and react?")

A European "patent" is not a patent. It conveys no substantive rights. It is essentially a voucher that you have to take to a national patent office. EPC Art. 64. If you don't register within the time limit specified under national law, you have nothing. If you register in some countries and not others, you have nothing in the non-registered countries. Look more carefully at Part II of the EPC titled "Substantive Law" - it only governs "European patents." Since a "European patent" is not a substantive "patent," Part II cannot have any "substantive law" effect. (EdColins, in most U.S. jurisdictions, legal conclusions that are contrary to the text, and supported only by section titles, are frowned on - what's the rule in your jurisdiction?) Substantive rights are determined solely by national law (EPC Art 64(3)), and that national law varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - it's resonably common for different states to apply different patentability criteria for the different national registrations of a single European patent. Do I recall correctly that an EP "patent" can be invalid in one jurisdiction and valid in others? EdColins' quote from EPC Art 65 proves my point, and has nothing to do with the proposition for which EdColins cites it - it only says that the applicant has to supply a translation - Art 65 says nothing about substantive effect of the European patent in any national jurisdiction.

EdColins is correct to the extent that the Strasbourg Convention is in essentially the same class as the Paris Convention, so my work has to be corrected in that respect. In American parlance, we would call it a treaty that is not "self executing." Neither Paris nor Strasbourg create substantive rights; accession to the treaty is merely a promise by the member states to conform their national substantive standards to those specified in the Convention. (Paris Convention is similarly "non self-executing," at least in the U.S.) Substantive rights arise only when the terms of the convention are enacted into national law. This contrasts to both the EPC and PCT, neither of which creates any substantive right (except the procedural effect of preserving priority claims during prosecution under EPC or PCT).

The paragraph about territorial and nature-of-infringement limits was added in answer to a specific question in this discussion page. This is something I have to advise clients on fairly regularly. I've had millions of dollars turn on this issue. One of the two of you has a strong feeling that this is not relevant, so you reverted it out, without leaving behind an explanation - please explain your objection, and your basis for so believing. If you addg a flag requesting a rewrite, it'll get rewritten. If you simply delete it, then the prompt to make something better is gone, and so is the answer to the question that some reader asked. That is not consistent with your roles as admins, is it.

So, I have a Strasbourg problem that is relatively easy to fix. In contrast, the existing text on EPC and PCT is at best misleading - I have had $x00 million deals get held up for days because someone on the deal held the erroneous impressions stated in the existing text. I would like to not have a deal held up because someone in the transaction is misguided because of an error here. How shall we meet in the middle?

It also appears that EdColins and Kcordina seem to have very definite and expansive defintions of material that is to be deleted or not useful - both seem to be very liberal in throwing out others' work (mine as well as others'), without moving it to somewhere else that might be more appropriate. This seems at the least to be extraordinarily rude, and is also remarkably counterproductive to encouraging knowledgable experts in the field to make useful contributions. Would we at least have an agreement that if you think material is appropriate (as opposed to bald spam) you will move it to some other article instead of discarding it outright?

Based on the not-entirely-correct facts that EdColins and Kcordina keep reverting to, and the important facts that they allege to be "not improvements," it's not at all clear that they have specific subject matter knowledge. Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to be be more deferential to those that do? (I've done three transactions in the last 13 years involving over $1 billion in patents, and have licensed a couple patents I wrote for over $1 million each - I have some idea what is commerically important and what isn't.) I will make no further contributions to any patent-related subject until EdColins and Kcordina both state on this page that they will be using a much lighter hand in policing content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.138.184 (talk)

Attorneys in Europe may sometimes say to their clients that a European patent is not a real patent, and that once granted a European patent becomes a bundle of national patents, and they are partially correct. This is however a simplification which makes it easier to explain the complex situation in Europe without writing long explanations (clients usually do not want long explanations, they want practical advices). And clients (applicants) do not actually need to know about all these subtle legal concepts in order to properly conduct business, but Wikipedia ought to be more precise.
A European patent is not like a conventional patent (like the U.S. patent), but still is or pretends to be a patent (Art. 2 EPC [1]). A European patent is defined by law (the EPC) as a patent. The situation is rather complex, and Wikipedia should not elude this legal complexity. A European patent is a patent (Art. 2(1) EPC), but once granted "it comes into existence (...) as a bundled European patent having both European and national protective effect". "The view that, after grant, a European patent breaks up into a bundle of national patents in designated Contracting States may appear plausible, but it is incorrect both in law and systematically". (Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003, under Article 2 - this is one of the most regarded book about the European Patent Convention, and this is the basis for my opinion, in addition to the EPC, and the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO). This is why I wrote in the article about the European Patent Convention": "Once granted, a European patent becomes equivalent to a bundle of nationally-enforceable, nationally-revocable patents, except for the provision of a time-limited, unified, post-grant opposition procedure."
Regarding infringement of European patents, the EPC lets indeed national laws decide what act is and what act is not an infringement (Art. 64(3) EPC). I understand that it is what you mean by "It conveys no substantive rights". The legal situation is again more complex, since, while what is an infringement is decided by national laws, the extent of protection conferred by a European patent is defined by Art. 69(1) EPC [2], with this provision being interpreted by national courts!... which may sound as if the extent of protection was defined by national law. You wrote "Substantive rights are determined solely by national law (EPC Art 64(3))". You should have written "Infringement of European patents is dealt by national law, but the extent of protection conferred by European patents is defined by the EPC" (see also Art. 64(2) [3] which is an EPC provision which takes precedence over national law and which relates to the protection conferred by the European patent).
Regarding validity of European patents, Art. 138(1) EPC [4] provides that a European patent may only be revoked under the law of a Contracting State, with effect for its territory, on five (set of) grounds specified in the European Patent Convention (example: substantive patent law provision of Art. 52 EPC about novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability). The legal situation is again complex, since, while the validity of a European patent in a designated state may be decided before a national court of that designated state (note that it can also be decided in a central opposition procedure before the EPO, after grant, with effect for all designated states), the substantive patentability requirements are those of the EPC, interpreted by national courts... which may sound as if the substantive patentability requirements were defined by national law (all the more since the substantive patentability requirements in the EPC and in the national laws of the Contracting states are harmonized to a large extent). Validity may be decided by national courts on the basis of EPC provisions combined with national law (with Art. 138 EPC taking precedence over national law). And indeed a European patent can be revoked in one designated state and while maintained in another.
Regarding Art. 65 EPC, a translation of a European patent, once granted, must be filed in some EPC Contracting States to avoid loss of right. Namely, in the EPC Contracting States which have "prescribe[d] that if the text, in which the European Patent Office intends to grant a European patent (...) is not drawn up in one of its official languages, the applicant for or proprietor of the patent shall supply to its central industrial property office a translation of this text in one of its official languages at his option or, where that State has prescribed the use of one specific official language, in that language." In that case, a European patent is indeed almost nothing but a voucher you need to take to the national patent office of the designated state (I like your nice, vivid image). The European patent is void ab initio in a designated state where the required translation (if required) is not filed within the prescribed time limit after grant. In other contracting states, no translation needs to be filed, e.g. in the UK if the European patent is in English (but maintenance fees still may have to be filed). Because a translation of the European patent needs in most cases to be filed does not allow you to say simply that a European patent does not confer substantial rights. IMHO this is a simplification.
Hope that this helps. I think we have more or less the same view. I am keen to use the proper legal terms as used in the legal texts. Regarding the US specific paragraph, please use United States patent law, I think it is better. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and Be bold. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
EdColins, please read more carefully. Be bold reads "Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. ... Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it. ... If .. you want to ... delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." I am unaware of any directive to unilaterally remove contributions that you concede are correct and precise, or to water down factual assertions. You concede that you have removed a number of facts, and that your rewrite is less precise. You admit that some of what you assert as fact is merely "pretend." You baldly misquote the EPC Art. 64, which states that "A European patent shall... confer ... the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State" - expressly incorporating, not "taking precedence" over, national law. In a number of your edits of other people's work, you have removed facts, and rendered their work less precise as well. I will make no futher contributions until EdColins and Kcordina state in writing that they will change their approach to editing, to give more deference to authors' contributions, and cease and desist from destroying information. I warn other contributors that there is a very high risk that your work will simply be discarded by these two vigilantes if they believe that your contibution should have been added somewhere else (their modus is to simply discard work, not to move it to their preferred article). The more facts and precision in your contribution, the higher the likelihood that EdColins and Kcordina will discard your work in the name of their personal and unexplained visions of "simplicity." Boundlessly
Be bold also reads: "Also, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." I reverted your edit because IMHO it is better to have a concise article, and you have introduced a couple of imprecisions such as "Thus far, the Paris Convention is the only treaty that has the effect of altering substantive patent rights", "The EPC does not itself create any substantive patent rights", "a European "patent" does not itself confer substantive patent rights". I have now moved your paragraph (for which I thank you, sincerely)
"In the U.S., a patent is a right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, exporting, exporting components to be assembled into an infringing device outside the U.S., importing the product of a patented process practiced outside the U.S., inducing others to infringe, offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent, and a few other very carefully defined categories. Thus, merely thinking about an invention, or drawing a diagram, is not an infringement. Research for "purely philosophical" inquiry is not an infringement, but research directed to commerical purposes is - unless the research is directed toward obtaining approval of the Food and Drug Administration for introduction of a generic version of a patented drug."
to United States patent law. I believe the remaining of what you have added is already present in another form in European Patent Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Sincerely, I apology if I have been to abrupt in reverting what you added. I did not mean to trigger such a reaction from you. I have tried at length to demonstrate the complexity of patent law in Europe citing sources and clarifying concepts, so if you do not agree with the content, please let's discuss it. I'd love to:
(1) By "A European patent is not like a conventional patent (like the U.S. patent), but still is or pretends to be a patent", I meant to say that, if you want, you can contest the fact that a European patent is a patent, but the EPC states in Article 2 (1): "Patents granted by virtue of this Convention shall be called European patents." So European patents are patents. A European patent is not a conventional patent, but still a patent.
(2) I have never written that Art. 64(3) took precedences on national law, but that Art. 64(2) took precedence on national law. Art. 64(3) states: "Any infringement of a European patent shall be dealt with by national law." I have never talked about Art. 64(1) EPC...
If you do not like me personally, I can't do anything. Let's take a break, read Wikipedia:Etiquette and come back later on. --Edcolins 14:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem whatsoever with editing or rewriting, and no problem with your observation that I had an error that needed to be fixed. My gripe is the repeated wholesale deletions of my work, and that of others. I can't fix what you deleted. My gripe is that you don't act "IMHO" - you assert your opinion with no deference or judgment, and no precision. Why would you promulgate the EPC's "pretend" statement that an EP patent is a "patent" when it embodies none of the substantive rights of a patent? Merely calling something by an imprecise name doesn't make it so. I don't want a sincere apology that you've been "[too] abrupt in reverting what you added", I want you to state in writing that you will stop. User:Boundlessly
Come on, a European patent has all the substantive aspects of a patent (even though it is not a conventional national patent of course):
(1) it is a set of exclusive rights (Art. 60(1) EPC [5] Art. 64(1) EPC)
(2) granted by at least one state, i.e. by the states having signed the European Patent Convention, through the European Patent Office (Art. 1 EPC [6])
(3) to a person (natural or legal person) (Art. 60 EPC [7])
(4) for a fixed period of time (Art. 63 EPC [8])
(5) in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) (Art 83 EPC [9])
(6) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable (Art. 52(1) EPC [10])
What is your definition of a patent? How would you suggest to call European patents then? I might suggest the new name to the next Diplomatic Conference revising the EPC. --Edcolins 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken (remember, I'm not a European lawyer), a European patent is not "(1) ... a set of exclusive rights (Art. 60(1) EPC [6])." Art. 60 nowhere uses the word "exclusive right" - you're reading carelessly again. The right mentioned in Art. 60(1) is an entirely different right. You have not yet referred to anything in the EPC or anywhere else that states that an EP patent has the defining substantive characteristic of a patent, the right to exclude (or otherwise recover for infringement). All you've pointed to is Art. 2, that the thing is "called" a "European patent." Calling something a name doesn't make it so: an English Horn is neither, and George Bush calling Iraq a "victory" on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier didn't make it one. The treaty says over and over again that substantive rights accrue when there is a national grant, not when an EP B patent issues. As an abstract theoretical possibility, a state could confer a substantive right to exclude based on a European patent, but to my knowledge, none does so. Do you know - is there any tribunal that will allow a patentee to enter armed with an EP B document (without a national grant) and walk out with an injunction or damages? Please name it, and cite me to its national law. If you can't, then an EP B is not a patent.
We're stuck with the name "European patent" - the law says that's what it's called, and neither of us can override that. The point of an encyclopedia is not to introduce a new and idiosyncratic nomenclature, it is to give a plain and precise explanation when there's such a confusing misnomer.
Your new sentence, "The EPO does not enforce any patent rights," is at best a non sequitur - no patent office enforces patent rights. Further, by citing Art 64(3), you confuse "choice of forum" (your statement)and "choice of law" (EPC Art 64(3)). If you are unfamiliar with the difference between these two, you lack the basic knowledge of legal principles to have the competence to edit on legal topics. You lack both the judgment and domain expertise to make good decisions. So stop.
The point of this email exchange is to get you to stop reverting out or otherwise removing such descriptions. Move, fix, add to, make more precise, yes. Remove or dilute to the point of misleading, no. Please indicate that you will stop, and secure Kcordina's agreement as well. User:Boundlessly
I have corrected the first reference, it was not Art. 60(1) but Art. 64(1) EPC (if you had read the article patent and the references I added, you would have seen this). Art. 64(1) EPC states:
"A European patent shall (...) confer on its proprietor from the date of publication of the mention of its grant, in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted, the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State."
which means that "a European patent confers rights, which are the same as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State". So "a European patent is of set of rights." Each EPC contracting state agrees that a European patent confers the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State, when such state is designated in the European patent. So, a European patent confers substantive rights. How can I be clearer than that?
You neglected the crucial phrase: "in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted." Does this mean anything under EP law? Interpreting it as an American lawyer, it seems to say "an EP patent confers rights when there is a national grant nunc pro tunc to the date of European issue, equivalent to a national patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk)
I have mentioned six items above, which defines a patent. Until now, you have not been able to demonstrate that any one of the criterions was not met by a European patent.
The expression "European patent" is of course not "a new and idiosyncratic nomenclature". It has been used in a consistent manner for the last thirty years throughout Europe (500 million inhabitants). Tens of thousands of European patents have been granted by the EPO. The English language evolves, is spoken outside the U.S. and Wikipedia must reflect this.
Exactly my point. You asked for a new nomenclature. I was taking exactly this view, that we can't mess with the established nomenclature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk)
I changed "The EPO does not enforce any patent rights," to "The EPO does not deal with infringement of European patents." That's the letter of the law. Any objection?
Finally, it would be nice if you could be more polite. I have apologized for being abrupt in reverting your edit at the outset. I removed your edit, because it had introduced mistakes as described above. This sentence: "You lack both the judgment and domain expertise to make good decisions." is a personal attack (Wikipedia contributors are bound to avoid them, comment on content, not on the contributor). You are clearly maintaining a negative attitude. And do not ask me each and every time to stop. Act in a positive manner and in good faith, or leave. --Edcolins 07:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that your statement: "The [EPC] says over and over again that substantive rights accrue when there is a national grant, not when an EP B patent issues" is wrong. Art. 64(1) EPC states that the European patent confers [rights] on its proprietor from the date of publication of the mention of its grant (that is, as from the publication of the B1 document, i.e. the European patent specification). Between the date of grant and the filing of the translation before the national patent office, if necessary, the European patent confers rights.
To reiterate, you misquoted Art 64(1) by leaving out the operative phrase "in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted." Does that phrase mean anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk)
"Article 64(1) lays down the day of publication of the mention of the grant of the [European] patent as being the relevant point in time for the commencement of the exclusive right conferred by the patent (...)" (Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003, under Article 64, part "Commencement of full protection").
If the prescribed translation is not filed, when necessary (and this is not necessary in all cases - e.g. Luxembourg and Monaco never require a translation of the patent specification) and within the prescribed time limit, loss of right later occurs on a state by state basis and with retroactive effect (Art. 65(3) EPC). --Edcolins 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[I got an edit conflict when I wrote the text below, due to an intervening post by Edcolins, some of which covers similar points to what I was writing here, but I'm not spending any more time adjusting it to remove duplicates or address further issues!]
Please try to calm down a little, both of you! It's not helpful to question the good faith of the other when it's clear that both of you are trying, from their own perspective, to improve the article and that each of you has something to add since nobody in the world can see the issue from the perspective of all possible readers.
I've been watching the edits of Edcolins for some months and he obviously has an extensive knowledge of European patent law. He has acknowledged some errors of judgement in editing and has made a couple of typos and mis-statements, but don't we all? Overall, through the whole range of patents articles, he has made at least as much positive contribution as any other person since I have started using Wikipedia.
Boundlessly clearly has a practical knowledge of what is relevant to real world applicants and the mistaken impressions which people have. Several of his statements about European patent law are wrong in strict legal terms, but they do have a basis in how you can explain a complicated and alien system system to inventors who don't want to know about patent law, they just want to know how they can protect their inventions (or get round the protection on other people's inventions) and these points need to be taken into account.
I'm sure that we would all like to see articles which are accurate in terms of law yet still comprehensible and useful. That is an extremely difficult balance even when you are addressing an audience solely of European IP academics or solely of US inventors; everyone comes with their own preconceptions and their own reason for wanting to know about the subject.
As it happens, I mainly agree with [what seems to be the view of] Edcolins that the detail of US patents and European patents would be better off dealt with in their own separate articles. The main article should be on general principles of what is meant by a patent, with specific national or laws being taken only to exemplify or show exceptions. Too much detail of a particular local system clouds the generally applicable principle. While I'm not prepared to start making changes here until people have cooled down a little, if anything I believe that the main article should say even less about European patents than it does at present and/or mention the OAPI system, which provides a significantly different model of regional cooperation. But that's not to say that anyone who disagrees with my point of view should stop editing, just that we need to remember to give reasons before reverting matter which others consider to be useful.
That said, I hope that it will not be taken badly if I address a few of the points raised. As I say, I'm not going to contribute to the article itself for a few days until people have cooled down, but:
(i) "The treaty says over and over again that substantive rights accrue when there is a national grant, not when an EP B patent issues": No it doesn't. The act of granting per se is performed by the EPO alone. Article 64(1) says that rights accrue from the date of publication of mention of its grant [by the EPO in the European Patent Bulletin]. There is no provision anywhere in the Treaty that even permits a national Office to make a national grant, yet alone requiring it. On the other hand, there can be formalities to be performed which it might be simpler to explain to an inventor as being a national grant, such as provision of a translation and payment of fees under Article 65. It's the sort of matter where an article needs to carefully balance strict law and practical implications in terms that are relevant to people actually using a system.
(ii) "Do you know - is there any tribunal that will allow a patentee to enter armed with an EP B document (without a national grant) and walk out with an injunction or damages? Please name it, and cite me to its national law.": This should be any competent national court (or, depending on how broadly you construe the term "grant", any competent national court of a State whose national languages include the one in which the B document was published). Taking the UK for example then, as long as the B document is in English, the Patents Court, the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Session will all grant an injunction without any action being taken before the UK Patent Office. The relevant law is Section 77 of The Patents Act 1977 [11]. Even if the European patent is in French or German, the UK Patent Office does not make a national grant, it merely requires a translation before the grant by the EPO can be enforced.
(iii) no patent office enforces patent rights: This is, as far as I know, true in the sense that no patent office that I know of begins actions against infringers. It's even true in the practical sense, that I don't know of any where infringement actions are actually heard, but some at least in principle have the authority to hear infringement cases, even if nobody has ever been known to bring an action there. For example, the UK Patent Office under Section 61(3) of the Patents Act 1977 - the powers are too limited to be useful to most people (the Comptroller can award damages but not an injunction, the case can only be heard there by the consent of both parties and in any case the decision is appealable to the Patents Court, which would be the normal venue of first instance) but they exist. This point is largely irrelevant, but it highlights the points that (a) nobody knows the law of all States so it is dangerous to make assumptions on a worldwide article based on a mainly US, mainly UK, mainly European, mainly Japanese or any other local perspective; and (b) a statement of the law can be strictly true, but of very little practical value if you don't take into account what it means for real people from different backgrounds. Tim B 09:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you TimB, for finally adressing the substantive issue in a legally-relevant way. As I said, I am only an American lawyer, not a UK lawyer, and my understanding was wrong to the following extent. I agree that Section 77 of The Patents Act 1977 [12] under UK national law gives UK national law effect to EPO publication. Thus, as a practical matter, under UK law a "European patent (UK)" has all the attibutes of a patent in the UK. However, it's important to note that this is a quirk of UK law, which gives substantive effect under UK law to an action of a non-UK agency, the EPO (thus, by national law, defining the national condition for the limitation "in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted" of EPC Art. 64(1)). UK section 77 and EPC Art. 64(1) both seem to confirm - correct me if I'm wrong - that the substantive right - even in the UK - does not arise by self-executing operation of the EPC itself, until there is a "grant" under national law.

I understand that other EPC member states do things differently, and it is therefore important not to state or imply that an EP patent is by that fact alone a patent. I understand that very few actions of any EU body are self-executing, they almost all require adoption into national law. I understand that the EPC is similar, in that it is not self-executing, and leaves the conditions for "national grant" to national law. The EPC only states the effect of national grant. So far, UK section 77 is the only text that has been mentioned in this discussion that states the conditions on which a "national grant" of an EP patent occurs. (Under U.S. practice, there would be no need for UK section 77 if the EPC and an EP B1 were self-executing in all designated states - how do things work in Europe?) I understand that it's fairly common for an EP application to designate 15 countries, then issue and mature into a "national grant" and right to exclude in only four - the treaty and the EP B1 issue are not self-executing as "national grants" in the other 11, because other countries do not have a national statute similar to UK Section 77. Is my understanding correct?

I hope people don't mind if I just butt in here. I'm UK Patent Attorney, hopefully soon to be qualified... I'd agree with the other contributors that there is no national grant of an European Patent (EP) for any of the states. If the EP grants in an official language of that state, that's it, you have coverage. You do not have to do anything to bring the EP into force in that country. Article 65 allows a derogation from this if the languages of the state in question do not include English, French or German; note how the EPC refers to an EP granted for a state. States joining the EPC (see Art 167) are required to bring their laws into conformity with the EPC (see the National Law guide at [13] and particularly the list of national legal bases). To that extent, the EPC is not self-executing, but once the national legal basis is there (that is, everyone has a "section 77"), there is no need to obtain a national grant. Filing a translation and paying a fee is sometimes required to stop the national law revoking or ignoring that grant for a given state (and if they ever get round to sorting out the London Agreement (2000), even that will be less necessary, but that's not the same thing. Unless you see it differently? --Harris 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(If so, here's why we view this differently. Here in the states, we constantly have situations of multi-jurisdictional layering of law: there's a tort under the law of state A, the events took place in state B, the tort is relevant to determining breach of a contract that specified the law of state C, and the parties are in the courts of state D. Which law applies, and what effect does state D give to the law of the other states? So a U.S. lawyer has to be very attuned to multi-jurisdiction choice of law issues. In contrast, I suspect that, because of the way UK law adopts the acts of the EPO as if done by the UK Patent Office, a UK lawyer advising on a "European patent (UK)" can just ignore all the multi-jurisdictional choice of law issues - and can probably go through an entire career without even recognizing that they exist. However, for non-UK issues, the difference can be crucial.)

As I have said several times, I am entirely comfortable with the notion that "detail of US patents and European patents would be better off dealt with in their own separate articles." My objection is the repeated violations of this very principle by Kcordina and EdColins. Rather than rearranging and moving material to where they think it might be more approriate, or correcting errors, they have both repeatedly discarded work of a number of contributors. That must stop. Anyone is welcome to correct my work, to move it, to improve it, to add to it, to make it more precise (so long as they have the relevant knowledge and exercise the relevant care to do so correctly). But to make progress, we also need a clear statement that there will be no more destruction of content. OK? User:Boundlessly

I have clearly come to this discussion somewhat late, and there seems little merit in joining in. I only add that whenever I have removed material, I have always checked that that material is in a different location - if it wasn't duplicated, I would have moved it. If you agree the national material is better off in the other articles - why do you keep adding it here? On your other questions here and on my talk page, I don't see why any real life skills/qualifications/experiences have any relevence here. To bring one's personal expertise to the table to support ones argument simply leads to the debate of "I'm cleverer/more experienced than you", which is pointless and irrelevent. Kcordina Talk 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Kcordina, your statement appears to be untrue. For example, on June 26, you removed a discussion of the territorial limits on patent rights. The discussion was not reinstated anywhere, until when prompted by my complaints about your frequent reverts, EdColins added it to United States patent law (which is not the correct solution, since all patents are territorially bounded). Also on June 26, you note in your own edit history "Remove excess detail re EPC & PCT - may add to relevent articles." "Remove" is not "move." "May" is not "always." Some of this material still has not been reinstated anywhere. On June 22, your edit note is "Trim history section - it's all in History of patent law" "Trim" is not "move." The second half is also objectively untrue - for example, the history of colonial U.S. patents and the links to the various generations of the U.S. Patent Act is not "all" in History of patent law. The discussion of the Paris Treaty exemption for ships airplanes and vessels temporarily present was removed, and apparently is still not reinstated anywhere (even though it is an international treaty feature, not a national feature). On April 11 and 12, you deleted a LOT of material, much of which is economically important, and that does not appear to have resurfaced anywhere.
I'm assuming you're acting with good heart. However, acting with "good heart, empty head" leads to essentially the same result. Do you have sufficient domain expertise, particularly about the post-issue life of patents, to accurately judge whether material is or is not "duplicated?" The facts appear to speak for themselves and certainly suggest that the answer is "no." "Real life skills/qualifications/experiences" is crucally relevant accurately making these determinations.
Stop deleting other people's work. As one of your own edit notes observes, at the very least it's very rude. If you recognize your own lack of "personal expertise" (which is the usual message conveyed by those who discount the value of expertise), then confine yourself to asking questions, instead of removing things you don't understand. Please indicate in writing that you will stop "trimming" and "removing," so we can all get on with adding useful material. User:Boundlessly
OK, some material has gone walk about in my work on the articles - hopefully my net contributions to this, Patent application and Patent prosecution is, however, positive. I hereby give my word that I shall stop trimming and removing so we can all go on with adding material and arrive at an article that is massively long and has every detail related to patents in one article. Kcordina Talk 18:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that all I asked for was a stop to discarding and destruction of content, and I granted an express license to anyone - including Kcordina and EdColins - to "correct my work, to move it, to improve it, to add to it, to make it more precise (so long as they have the relevant knowledge and exercise the relevant care to do so correctly)." Kcordina's answer is not precisely responsive to my request. I therefore accept the part of Kcordina's promise that is responsive, and release him/her from the excess of the promise above my request. Thank you. EdColins? User:Boundlessly

A bonsai tree
A bonsai tree
Don't worry, David, I will be more careful in reverting what you add. I will make sure to properly move the content somewhere in another article, or to properly indicate where it is already included. Of course, if I believe the content is wrong, I will challenge and discuss it in the talk page, and revert or amend it. Regarding Kcordina's edits, he did a tremendous job recently in improving the article. We all reasonably agree that the article "patent" should be a general and concise introduction. Pruning it from time to time is necessary, like a bonsai. Information may sometimes be lost in the process, even though we should always try to keep any valuable, verifiable information. The best way to prevent excess pruning is to include proper, verifiable sources at the outset. This is extremely important and often overlooked. At the end of the day, any edit lacking a source may be challenged and removed. --Edcolins 10:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There are several others who made good contributions that were removed, including at least Smallgwg and Nowa. Please don't limit your care to my contributions - a number of others deserve the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk)
Boundlessly, Thank you for your words of support. It is upsetting when a contribution is deleted, but as far as Ed Collins and KCordina are concerned, I find that their reasons usually have merit. That's not to say that we always agree, but I respect their opinions and generally we can work things out in good faith. As a result of the dialectic, I think the body of Wiki articles on patents has improved quite a bit. I hope you will continue to be an active contributor.--Nowa 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coexistence of national and European patents

I have just added a section "Coexistence of national and European patents" in European patent law, with sources, to build on the discussion (previous section). Cheers. --Edcolins 09:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governing Laws

I've tidied this section up a bit. I think the wording is precise enough that the disputed tag can be removed - does anyone have any other thoughts? --Harris 08:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object if I remove the disputed tag? Speak now, or forever (well, until you put it back) hold your peace... --Harris 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
OK by me.
Any particular reason you use the term "modern patent"?--Nowa 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not me, guv. I reverted someone else's edit that had fiddled with that paragraph and messed up the editing... I agree that it can go. --Harris 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 210.210.33.76's edits

My edit summary on my recent revert might have sounded a little harsh. I just wanted to express that I didn't consider that the slides in the URL cited proved anything, the author wasn't cited and so there was no way to verify how widely held that argument is. I couldn't also see the relevance, or any evidence, that the cost of replicating software is zero. --Harris 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The edits are back. I'll leave it for a bit to see what other people think about these edits - I still don't think that the source is reputable enough in the sense of WP:V. --Harris 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The content of the edits might be more appropriate for software patent debate--Nowa 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Even apart from the fact that the arguments in the slides rely on a number of unjustified assumptions, and logical leaps, they do not clearly address the subject of software patents. Rather it is a general set of opinions relating to certain business models. To see any relevance to software patents, you have to look at slide 7 and ask for yourself why the kids decided that they needed the $7 product and didn't either make their own or buy the 2 $2 products. Even then, it doesn't distinguish between issues of copyright and patents.
The most that you can conclude with any certainty from this entry is that "some people consider that the fact that software and ideas can be replicated at negligible cost means that they should not be the subject of patent protection". However, it is this very fact that others say make protection (copyright or patent, depending on who is arguing and why) of these subjects even more important than for other "products" - "who would invest $1m in developing the software (or other thing) if a person who has made no investment at all can immediately copy it and sell it at negligible cost to themselves". It's a difficult subject, but if any of the content of this remains, it should be presented as argument rather than fact. I agree that it is more relevant to the software patent debate article. For the level of detail relevant to Patent, perhaps something more like "Particular controversies have developed in relation to products where the unit production cost is minimal in comparison to development costs, such as software and medicines.". Tim B 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I copyedited the contribution to:

Mashilamani Sambasivam noted that ideas (such as algorithms) and the expression of ideas (such as software) can be replicated at zero cost;[1] thus, the protection of patent rights preserves unfair profits for the inventor.[citation needed]

However, although I think this is the point the person was trying to make; it is, unfortunately, not directly supported by the reference - which doesn't address patents at all but is more generally a condemnation of corporate profits based on "what the market will bear pricing" and makes some interesting assumptions that cast doubt on his conclusions like "BUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE WORLD ECONOMY IS APPROXIMATELY CONSTANT," and some corollaries, " A profit cannot be made on one side of a transaction without a loss on the other side of the transaction," and "It is not possible for everyone to somehow make profits."
My copyedit is to make the proposed change more readable, and match the reference, it is not intended as an endorsement that this slideshow belongs in this article, which I am still pondering... --Trödel 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the copyedit and no offense to the original contributor, but I feel the section should be deleted. I Googled Mashilamani Sambasivam and could not find any evidence that he(she?) is a recognized authority in the field of patents.--Nowa 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The link www.archive.org/download/profitAndPoverty/slide1.html

was removed. The reason cited for removal was 'no original research'. -Masi76 Masi76 05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Reference Site

The Patent Reference site looks like an interesting venture, but it appears to be fairly redundant with other references listed. If is grows to the point of providing significant information not otherwise available, then I recommend it be reconsidered for inclusion at that time.

The Wiki it provides looks promising, but it's not at all clear what will be part of the collection. --Nowa 00:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inventor Basics Web Site

There is some concern that the link to inventorbasics.com is an attempt at linkspam. After reviewing the site, however, appears to me to be a genuinely noncommercial web site devoted to providing practical information about patents and the commercialization thereof. It's particularly directed to those that are new to patenting and innovation. It provides useful information that is not readily found in the other sites listed in this section. I understand that with a .com address it may at first glance appear to be commercial but I could not find anything in its content that would violate the standards of Wikipedia. Have I missed something?--Nowa 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it violates items 1. and 3. of External links#Links normally to be avoided. Many web sites offer information about patents and this one generally does not offer anything much more than an usual website with information about patents. The information is already on Wikipedia or should (or will) be integrated into Wikipedia. I don't think this link is particularly appropriate here. IMHO it would be POV to keep it there and it would open the door to accepting many more external links with a similar content. --Edcolins 11:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the site - and agree with Edcolins - the inclusion violates 3, and there is not much unique information that isn't in the article or in the other external links. - thus violating 1. However, I think that the straightforward (step-by-step) presentation could overcome 1, but ONLY IF it was submitted by another user since it appears to be NowaTysonwilde's site. I am removing per above. Also freepatentsonline seems to be down - so I am linking to uspto.gov instead --Trödel 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point about 1. After a more careful review, I didn't see much information on the site that isn't already found in Wikipedia. What I can suggest to the original poster is that he/she might want to pick out an indivual page with unique content to link to. As far as 3 goes, I am not the owner or a contributor to the site.--Nowa 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad - I knew I had verified the owner with the original poster but thought I remembered the name so I didn't check --Trödel 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem.--Nowa 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To the last editor that posted "inventor basics": We appreciate your contribution, but I think before you post on the main page, you should propose a posting here and address the concerns expressed above, particularly the need for unique content that is not otherwise available in Wikipedia. A glossary of patent legal terms, for example, is available at patent legal concepts.--Nowa 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I created some problems. I'm Tyson Wilde who submitted inventorbasics.com to the main page. I am new to this and only submitted the website after some of my co-workers encouraged me to do so and I should have paid closer attention to the rules for external links. So let me put in my plug for inventorbasics.com and then I'll let you guys decide whether or not to include it. I do believe that it has some new content, especially on the "patent process" and "patent layout" pages. I'm in charge of the patenting department where I work and these pages are designed to answer (in a way that is easy to understand) questions that the engineers and managers at my work ask every week. I made the flowchart and also marked up a patent so they could have a "visual" explanation and not be required to read a lot text to get the same information. Later down the road I hope to "visually" explain more concepts through inventorbasics.com. Most people I talk to want to skim over a page to find the revelent material quickly and in the patent resources that I'm aware of require a lot of reading to get the gist of the information. You know what they say - a picture is worth a thousand words. So that is what I believe that inventorbasics.com has to offer - information presented to those who are unfamilar with patents in a easy to understand way. All most other patent resouces out their are really directed to people somewhat familar to patents. In light of the "visual" explanations, I ask that you reconsider a link to inventorbasics.com. Please let me know what you decide. Thank you --Tysonwilde 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyson, thanks for pointing out the unique content. I agree that the page of a visual layout of a patent would be a suitable link for this patent article. Likewise for the flow chart of the patent process. Any concurences? other opinions?--Nowa 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think the external links would better fit in the article about United States patent law, as the proposed links are primarily concerned with the layout of a US patent and the prosecution of US patent application. IMHO, it would be US-centric to add these links in patent. The article "patent" should adopt a world-wide view, leaving the particularities of each national or regional patent law to more specific articles. --Edcolins 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead then and add a link for the flow chart and patent layout to the United States patent law page then? Thanks --Tysonwilde 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK by me.--Nowa 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Thanks. --Edcolins 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various other resources - IPMenu

When moving various US-specific links to US patent law, I noticed that IPMenu was a service provided by an AU/NZ firm of patent attorneys. I left the link there since it seems to be a useful and balanced set of resources. Advertising by the providers is fairly unobtrusive and links are included to lists of attorneys without the providers appearing first. Nevertheless, if there are any sites providing equivalent resources without advertising, it may desirable to replace this one. Tim B 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tim B - from person experience it is a useful and unbiased list - AFAICR they'll put anyone on who asks. I'm for it being kept... --Harris 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can legal research, or legal advice, be patented?

As part of a discussion in the talk page for Juris Doctor (under the heading What is new knowledge?) I have pointed out that the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings in July of 2006 on the reported developing practice -- of the United States Patent Office -- of granting patents for tax reduction strategies inherently based on original legal research. I'd like to point out that anyone who is interested may want to see if any discussion develops there about the topic. I am a tax practitioner, not an IP practitioner, but somebody working on this Patent article might be interested in that discussion. Yours, Famspear 22:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this section significant to the article?

I have removed this section from the article:

== PowerUsers Influence ==
The popular Podcast PowerUser.tv run by StarDock often mimics and ridicules the way patents were offered. Recently there has been a change in the way patents were assigned due to the influence of PowerUser and inperticular Brad Wardell and Kristen Hatcher.

It does not appear popular and significant enough to be included in the article. It sounds rather obscure to me as well. --Edcolins 07:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal effect - Abandoned

30 August 2006, Mpa5220 added "abandoned":

"...Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transfered, abandoned, or simply given away."

Is this correct generally? I would not understand abandoning a patent (as opposed to an application, perhaps) to have any specific legal effect. Under UK law, for example, you can allow it to lapse or you can surrender it, but I would not regard that as being the same as simply abandoning it in the most general sense (and it doesn't have a unique special sense around the world). If you simply decide to abandon a patent, you can pick it up again without any problem as long as it's not expired by more than six months (Paris Convention Article 5bis - and even then you may be able to get it restored), but unlike physical property, nobody else can pick it up in the meantime.

In fact, I don't think that there's an international concept of abandoning any sort of IP right other than through it lapsing through non-payment of fees or expiring - in many cases, deemed abandonment would depend on the local laws on estoppel or limitations - this is more likely to be relevant to copyright because patents in most countries would simply expire before the relevant periods had elapsed. If there's a more specific US sense, perhaps that would be better dealt with under US patent law. I would have suggested "allowed to lapse" as being more generic, but obviously that does not fit in with the analogy with property more generally. Tim B 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "abandoned". It does not fit with the words "like any other property right" (can you simply "abandon" a real estate property?). In addition, a patent can usually be surrendered or allowed to lapse, but abandoning a patent is rather ambiguous indeed (at least in some countries). --Edcolins 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I put "abandoned" back. Both Tim B and EdColins precisely identify a number of ways to abandon a patent. Like most other property, for some period of time, it can be "unabandoned" (you throw something in the trash, then you go back and take it out again) - that doenst change that it was, for a time, "abandoned." Real estate is abandoned all the time - drive through U.S. rust belt cities or New Orleans. Boundlessly 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverse engineering costs of computer software and pharmaceuticals

Deleted the example of computer software in the chapter "Economic rationale" in the following sentence:

Third, in many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and low marginal costs and low reverse engineering costs - pharmaceuticals and computer software being two prototypical examples), once an invention exists and has been tested, the cost of turning it into a product is typically less than one sixth the R&D cost.

While this is true for pharmaceuticals (it only takes a chemical laboratory and some time to find out, which chemical substance constitutes a certain pharmaceutical product), this is untrue for computer software. It is not impossible to reverse engineer software, but it takes long time and is not easy, see for example the efforts and slow progress of www.winehq.org and www.reactos.org to replicate MS Windows functionality. --Schneedrache 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure prior patent issuance

My layman's understanding is that in the US the inventor is protected if s/he files within a certain amount of time following first public disclosure, but that in other important jurisdictions the inventor cannot disclose anything prior filing, and in still others, s/he cannot disclose before the patent is issued! Is this last condition actually true in any important jurisdiction? A table listing these and other conditions (time protected, fees, maintenance, etc.) for the major regions (US, Japan, Europe/International, etc.) would be nice... --Wfaxon 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PatentLaw

Template:PatentLaw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PatentTypes

Template:PatentTypes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iconic Image

I was wondering if we could put a more iconic image for a patent in the article than the current picture of the patent notices on a Martin ejector seat. I thought perhaps the drawing from one of the early light bulb patents might be better. Any thoughts?--Nowa 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it [14] Any seconds?--Nowa 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of someone playing the guitar? --lquilter 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
None other than Eddie Van Halen--Nowa 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, but what were you pointing at? A light bulb? Or a different ejector seat than is on the front page now? Sorry for my confusion. --lquilter 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As Edcolins points out below, the cliche iconic image of a patent is the light bulb illustration from Thomas Edison's patent. The image you were looking at is a drawing from Edward L. Van Halen's patent 4,656,917, "Musical Instrument Support". I was being a bit tongue in cheek but still, it might be fun to post that as the iconic image of a patent.--Nowa 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the picture of the ejector seat. It somehow shows that a patent is not just a piece of paper but relates to a tangible invention. Maybe the light bulb is a bit cliché. --Edcolins 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer cool illustrations from patent applications, rather than the (relatively) boring labels & tags that just say "patent". --lquilter 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What could be cooler than Eddie Van Halen?--Nowa 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Patti Smith? --lquilter 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Wikis

An anonymous user added a section on patent wikis and it was subsequently removed by one of our more senior editors. It seems to me that links to patent wikis would be a reasonable addition to the article since they are publicly available resources. Beth Noveck's site in particular is designed to be a resource for patent examiners. Other thoughts?--Nowa 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Was the section a section within external links or further references, or somewhere else? Personally, I'm not sure the resources need to be classified by format (wiki, database, reference book, etc); subject seems more important (indexes, philosophical treatises, case law treatises, "general", etc.). ... As for specifics, the Beth Noveck site is good and should be linked as a "further reference" or "external link". Other patent wikis would have to be evaluated separately. Can you list them? --lquilter 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This had been posted earlier.

[edit] Wikis

--Nowa 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Add this wiki links in the article. And there would be a wiki about inventions --193.145.201.53 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Add the wikis again in the article. --Mac 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would just add them in as "External links"; they don't need to be in a "wikis" section. Both should have source information as well as title and description. --lquilter 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Done --Nowa 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(rest of discussion moved into its own heading)

[edit] Public review of patents

Alright, let's keep these external links. However, I would suggest to move them in another, new article. I suggest: Wiki review in patent prosecution. It is a notable reality, quite recent indeed but notable enough, to me. I haven't found a better title, yet accurately reflecting this topic. Feel free to suggest another title! And please help improving this stub. Thanks. --Edcolins 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I would be less specific there, too -- public participation in prior art searches? Or something like that. It should discuss the history of public projects in response to perceived problems @ the PTO. The public prjoects inclue the patent bounty hunter project of a few years ago (is it still going on, I wonder?) --lquilter 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
All gone the BounyQuest.
I agree though, an article on public participation in patent examination/invalidation would be good. Incidentally, Wikipedia already serves that function. My experience as a patent agent has been that US patent examiners routinely use Wikipedia to get a quick idea on what a particular subject is about. That's not to say that they actually cite it. There are serious problems with doing that, but they do find it a useful reference.--Nowa 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wiki review in patent prosecution moved to Public participation in patent examination. Needs improvement. --Edcolins 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (had edit conflict on this talk page, so I had not considered the patent activism idea... --Edcolins 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC))
  • (I moved this discussion to its own heading for clarity. --lquilter 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Should the article be limited to public participation in the patent application process / prior art searches, or should it also cover efforts like the EFF's patent project and the Dan Ravicher's Public Patent Foundation project? So, both examination and invalidation? Patent activism, basically? That takes it in a bit of a different direction. I could see two articles: one dedicated to dealing with patents in the current system -- efforts to increase public participation, create new resources for prior art review, request review of granted patents, and so on; and another dealing with patent law reform efforts. Thoughts? --lquilter 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey you guys are moving too fast for me today. I went ahead and put a section on patent wikis in prior art. In the meantime, you created a whole new article. --Nowa 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PatentNumber

Is there a template that allows me to enter the basic information about a patent, and be redirected to an appropriate website? eg.

{{Template:PatentIndex|Country=US|Number=20040230959|Type=Software|Description=IS NOT OPERATOR}}

Would give me a the text "Patent: IS NOT OPERATOR (20040230959)" and an embedded link (↑) to the US Patent Office web site http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20040230959&OS=20040230959&RS=20040230959

Pls show me how this is (can be) done.

ThanX NevilleDNZ 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My favourite is Template:Cite patent (since I wrote it) which links to the very complete epoline database. If you really want to link to the USPTO database, there are templates such as Template:US patent.
I'm in the process of doing an upgrade to the Cite patent template. It will not give a "patent type" like "software" as you seem to want since there is really no official way to classify the type of patent. However, I was planning on including information such as the title, inventor, corporate assignee, filing and grant date. Watch this space! GDallimore (Talk) 09:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:US patent will do the job nicely. And re: "patent type", it was just a thought, but clearly not a priority. I will use Template:US patent ThanX 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to use [Template:Cite_Patent]] but it doesn't pull up this 2004 application (20040230959). eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ALGOL_68&oldid=114858287#Assignation_and_Identity_Relations So I switched to Template:US_patent_application, and it worked dandy.

I am not sure what the problem is, it could be a cut off date problem, or that this number is only a patent application. Any hints?

NevilleDNZ 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

US patent 2004230959 (lose the zero after the year) seems to work. Is that the patent (aplication) you were after? GDallimore (Talk) 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, US patent 2004230959 refers to what appears to be the same idea. It seems reasonable to drop the "almost" leading zero, but it is odd. Also not that this idea is currently only an "application". I am guessing it gets a real/different number when the applications is granted? NevilleDNZ 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

Wanna comment on points 3 and 4, since 1 and 2 seem standard. They are already marked citation needed and attribution needed, but I wanna point out some more:

Third, in many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and either low marginal costs or low reverse engineering costs - computer processors, software, and pharmaceuticals being prototypical examples)...
  • processors: high FC, medium(?) MC, ? RI
  • software: low FC, low MC, rel. high RI (for a big product, compare Photoshop/GIMP)
  • pharma: high FC, low MC, low RI

These businesses don't have too much in common.

High fixed costs are very much a common characteristic of the three - software is essentially 100% fixed cost! Once you've paid the engineers to write it, the testers to debug it, and the release folks to get the first one in releaseable form, copies 2-infinity are essentially free. Similarly, reverse engineering a software product is far cheaper than programing it the first time - about 1/3 the cost, back when I used to be a programmer. 1/3 of a "big product" can still be a big number - but it's still way less than the original. Boundlessly 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
, once an invention exists, the cost of commercialization (testing, tooling up a factory, developing a market, etc.) is far more than the initial conception cost. (For example, the "rule of thumb" for computer companies in the 1980's was that post-R&D costs were 7-to-1 [citation needed]). Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment.

Also, assumed the comp was stupid enough to publish the R&D result, some other company would do it, since in economic theory there is competition even at the margin, and high FC, low MC businesses are not uncommon. So either I don't get it or there is no point here.

Fourth, many believe [attribution needed] that patent rights create an incentive for companies to develop workarounds to patented inventions, thereby creating improved or alternative technologies that might not otherwise have been developed.

I don't exactly see the immediate econ. benefit here. Suppose A makes drug X, then B develops replacement Y, spending millions/billions, only to have two virtually identical products? Again, explanation and/or attribution would be needed.

I can't discuss particular cases, but I've represented parties on both sides (patentee and desginer-arounder) where a better product emerged out of a patent-design-around. What's the matter with two products that compete in the same space? Duopoly pricing is more competitive than monopoly pricing. Different patients have different side-effect profiles for two drugs that have the same indication. The assumption of "two virtually identical products" is unwarranted, and if it exists as a case at all, is not every case. Boundlessly 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One interesting side effect of modern day patent usage is that the small-time inventor can use the exclusive right status to become a licensor. This allows the inventor to accumulate capital quickly from licensing the invention and may allow rapid innovation to occur because he or she may choose to not manage a manufacturing buildup for the invention. Thus the inventor's time and energy can be spent on pure innovation, allowing others to concentrate on manufacturability.

I'm no expert here, but to put this under Rationale seems a little bold. There is a lot of talk out there about submarine patents, patent trolls and a general rise of misuse of the system. This paragraph would fit (among others) a patent troll.--83.189.75.134 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As many articles have noted, "troll" is rather too imprecise a term to be useful. This sentence isn't talking about a Lemelson (who had a foggy idea, and kept it secret in the Patent Office for decades), we have the opposite - an inventor who does everything he can to get the invention out to the public, in the form of a product. Nor is it talking about a Patriot Scientific, which employs no inventors or engineers, only patent attorneys. The "small-time inventor" of this paragraph is exactly the kind of inventor who brought you intermittent wipers, lockable ratchet wrenches, and many features of your telephone, but who cannot hope to raise the capital to acquire means of production. Boundlessly 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software patents

Any external link to the origin of software patents, and a general account of the early battles (Microsoft DOS etc)? Couldn't find a separate article.--Shtove 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Software patents have been around as long as there has been software. They've only relatively recently come into the public eye, however, so more and more individuals are now filing patents and being affected by them, as illustrated in List of software patents. GDallimore (Talk) 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Grabbing

There was a recent edit introducing the term "patent grabbing". This was a potentially interesting addition, but needed to be sourced. A quick look at Google showed only 150 hits on "patent grabbing" and among these, the term was used in a number of different ways.--Nowa 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. Questions / Requests for clarification

If I implement something covered by a paten for which I do not have a licence, but for which I do profit from, would I be breaking the law under most jursdictions? I.e. does a patent protect from all duplication or only duplication in a comercial context?

This is a question that really can only be answered by competent legal counsel. You would be best served by contacting a patent attorney in your locale.--Nowa 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egbert v Lippmann

Is Egbert v. Lippman still valid precedent? Should this observation be moved to US patent law?--Nowa 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent expired

So, every (or almost all) patent granted before 1987 has expired?, for example MS-DOS, Windows 2.0, Intel 8086 architecture, PACMAN, PONG and such?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.157.49 (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A fundamental error

"A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention." - This is rubbish. A patent is the exclusive right to do this. It is not merely a right to exclude others from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.158.167 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but this is neither wrong nor rubbish. I have added a supporting source to help convince you. I hope it will. --Edcolins (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained revert

GDallimore, why did you integrally revert my edits on 9 february? 84.41.231.64 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits seemed meaningless, eg: "some countries, certain subject areas are added to this, such as business methods and mental acts" appeared to be a non-sequiter and mentioning business methods/mental acts seemed more appropriate where it had been before.
Some were plain wrong, eg "In the European EPC countries, software can be patented as part of a physical invention, but not as standalone software."
Some were insignificant detail, eg "However, if one of these patentees doesn't offer a reasonable deal for the other patentee, then this can be ocntested in court, which effectively comes down to a judge setting a reasonable price."
None were referenced.
All in all, while it was clearly a good faith edit, I thought that the changes failed to improve the article in any way and worsened it in some ways. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
GDallimore's action was not "unexplained" (edit summary: "revert all - some non-constructive edits, some edits which reduced quality of article - previous version better all round"). He did the right thing and explained his action. If some edits are believed not to improve an article, reverting them is part of the cycle: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Let's now discuss what you (84.41.231.64) want to change in the article. --Edcolins (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentence in "Criticism"

Why is this sentence

"Since at least the early 1980s, patent offices have accepted that computer programs can lie within the realm of patentable subject matter, although the regulations for when a computer program is a patentable invention differ markedly between countries."

in the criticism section? Besides, no source has been provided to verify this bold affirmation, for all patent offices throughout the world, not just in the US. I am planning to remove it again. Any thoughts? --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not write it. However, you are right about its location. I think it should be under a new heading, say: "Software Patents"? 71.114.31.98 (talk)
Adding the word "some" has seemed to help to align it to the source. Any other objections before I add the heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.31.98 (talk • contribs)
I think it would be better to move the sentence instead to Software patents in the United States. The source does not say "Some patent offices" but specifically applies to the US (US supreme court ruling). Besides, there is already a discussion about the sentence "In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) did not grant a patent if the invention used a calculation made by a computer." in Talk:Software patents under United States patent law, section "No software patent granted in the 1970s, ... seems wrong". Your input to that discussion would be welcome! Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The united States is not the only country to allow software patents so adding "some" to the line would solve that discrepancy (as is now). Some mention on software patents seems in order in the main patent article here. If you think it is too prominent under its own heading I would understand but it needs to go somewhere, you think? Also I was going to do some additions to Software patents in the United States after work here as the discussions there seem wrong and are not finished, as well.
I have added my concurrence to Software patents in the United States talk. After looking over things carefully herein I think the short sentence in here on software patents needs a heading as it is difficult to insert it in other places unless placed in the main top section. It seems it got into "Criticism" as some have criticized software patents as algorithms in the past. I believe this has changed and such are classified as "data structures" when residing on hard drives or the like, of late. 71.114.31.98 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please include a section on 'Patent costs'

Small paragraph is all that's needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The cost of patents are what brought me to the page in the first place. Nothing there though.I want to add something about that. Found some webpages from attorneys but here's the thing , you don't need an attorney to file a patent.--Ericg33 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as there are do-it-yourself books on how to remodel your house, there are do-it-yourself books on how to get a patent without a lawyer. One such book is Patent It Yourself by David Pressman who is a lawyer. Study, study, study. However, it is not practical to learn how to draft good claims by reading a book. To learn that you must study claims in other people's patents, then try drafting your own claims, then take them to a patent lawyer for criticism. Maybe after the tenth try you will get it right. Greensburger (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section on costs, to be improved, updated and globalized. Litigation cost estimates would be interesting as well. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the info is already blindingly out of date is, I think, a good sign that such a section is not a good idea in an encyclopedia. I'm not too bothered by its inclusion or omission, though, so I'll leave it for other people to try to improve. GDallimore (Talk) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The section needs quite some improvement indeed. I do however believe that the costs of obtaining a patent, and more generally the costs of maintaining a patent system is a quite significant aspect of the "economics of patents". I have moved the section-stub in the economics part of the article and tagged it as stub, in the hope of fuelling improvement.. Any economists out there? --Edcolins (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)