Mikä on WikiWiki?
nettipäiväkirja
koko wiki (etsi)
viime muutokset
1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system:
The patent system should not be concerned about the interests of the right holders; the patent system is only justified insofar it serves a public interest, such as innovation, economical growth, and the well-being of consumers. When it doesn't -- as is the case in software industry in general, and in pharmaceutical industry, where the well-being of consumers is in some cases neglected -- it should not be used, and the legislation should be careful enough to prevent these cases of abuse.
In addition, the processes of patent acquisition and dispute resolution should be light and accessible enough not to constitute a problem even for a busy one-man business. This, while probably practically not achievable, is very important to keep up the equality of all parties involved.
1.2 Are there other features that you consider important?
There should be a clear, easy and inexpensive way to question the validity of patents and to reclaim any expense caused by patent officials by incorrectly given patents.
A good patent system should also take into account the fact that not every innovative person has the time, skills, or routine of making patent applications. To account for this, there should be a way to cancel patents when prior art or acquisition from another source can be demonstrated.
1.3 How can the Community better take into account the broader public interest in developing its policy on patents?
The single worst problem currently is that many areas of development are highly cumulative in their innovation and the patents have already brought these areas into a state where knowledge of patents only hinders innovation -- the burden of assessment of the legal consequences of patents greatly outweighs any potential technical value they might have.
Consequently, patents should only ever be given for a technical innovation with clear commercial / industrial applications, and even then, they should go through a more thorough examination of their actual technical value.
Another important action would be the shortening of the patent life cycle. For instance, the software industry and IT communication industry have suffered ridiculously of the GIF picture format disputes that were caused by the LZW compression US patent.
2.1 By comparison with the common political approach, are there any alternative or additional features that you believe an effective Community patent system should offer?
The European Community patent system should be placed under strict democratic supervision to prevent any abuse and misinterpretation of patent laws in granting patents.
3.1 What advantages and disadvantages do you think that pan-European litigation arrangements as set out in the draft EPLA would have for those who use and are affected by patents?
A pan-European patent enforcement is positive per se, however, to prevent the problematic state of US intellectual property, the European patent system must regain the transparency, accountability and good practices of traditional patent processes. If anything, patents should be granted on much stricter terms and there should be a way to question a patent as a whole, not only on case-by-case basis as in patent disputes.
If the current EPO practices were to be chosen as a basis for pan-European patent legislation, the results would be abysmal.
3.2 Given the possible coexistence of three patent systems in Europe (the national, the Community and the European patent), what in your view would be the ideal patent litigation scheme in Europe?
It should be possible to litigate a Community patent before a Community court, based on Community law made by Community legislators (and not by an unaccountable TBA or EBA of the EPO). This court should be independent of any Community or other Patent Office.
4.1 What aspects of patent law do you feel give rise to barriers to free movement or distortion of competition because of differences in law or its application in practice between Member States?
The differences in patent laws are not much of a barrier themselves, but the practices of the overly liberal European and UK patent offices are.
4.2 To what extent is your business affected by such differences?
There are many patents granted by the EPO that, if legalised, would make it illegal for our organisation and, indeed, any business in the IT industry, to do what we are doing. As long as national legislation and European patent legislation protects us, this is not a problem. But as soon as somebody actually decides to begin enforcing any of these overly broad patents by initiating lawsuits against breaching parties, even if the lawsuit had only marginal chances of succeeding, the effect is very bad.
The existence of low-quality, overly broad patents gives the patent holder power to choose whom to actually sue. This results in a weapon that threatens the equality and independence of businesses on the free market.
4.3 What are your views on the value-added and feasibility of the different options (1) - (3) outlined above?
Option 3 is the worst one, opening many loopholes and traps in controlling the high quality of the patents.
Option 1 is the least bad of the choices, however, it should be augmented with strict restrictions on possible patent subject matter.
4.4 Are there any alternative proposals that the Commission might consider?
The European Commission should generate a strategy against patent inflation, to encourage and ensure the high quality and beneficiality of granted patents.