Difference between revisions of "Consultations from government bodies and courts"
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * 1994 USPTO software patent hearings) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{navbox}} | ||
:''(for ongoing consultations, see '''[[Current events]]''')'' | :''(for ongoing consultations, see '''[[Current events]]''')'' | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
* [[Australian consultation responses 2009]] - by the [[Australia]]n government's ''Advisory Council on Intellectual Property'' | * [[Australian consultation responses 2009]] - by the [[Australia]]n government's ''Advisory Council on Intellectual Property'' | ||
* [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBA G3-08]] - by the ''[[European Patent Office]]'' | * [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBA G3-08]] - by the ''[[European Patent Office]]'' | ||
| − | * [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs]] - by the [[USA]]'s Supreme Court | + | * [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs]] - by the [[USA]]'s [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] |
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Consultations]] | [[Category:Consultations]] | ||
Revision as of 22:44, 9 April 2010
- (for ongoing consultations, see Current events)
Sometimes patent offices, government bodies, or courts seek comments from the public.
These consultations are usually performed in a way that systematically exagerates the influece of patent lawyers and rich organisations. Redressing this imbalance means you have to participate, and you have to get other stakeholders to participate too.
When patent offices consult
It is important to note that consultations for setting substantial policy should probably be organised by the legislative body. If the consultation will have an effect on whether software patents are granted or upheld, then traditional separation of powers is short-circuited if a patent office is allowed to conduct the consultation.
For example, the European Patent Office makes money on patent applications it approves, not on applications it refuses. If they organise a consultation on expanding/limiting the scope for granting patents, they're susceptable to influence the consultation to produce a recommendation that patenting be expanded.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Current events - the most likely page to be up to date about current consultations
- Organising a campaign
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
Analyses of submissions for past consultations
- Australian consultation responses 2009 - by the Australian government's Advisory Council on Intellectual Property
- Briefs submitted to EPO EBA G3-08 - by the European Patent Office
- Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs - by the USA's Supreme Court
