Difference between revisions of "Consultations from government bodies and courts"
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * For Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, UK, 2006: ** [http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Gowers_review_on_intellectual_property ORG collection of submis) |
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: rearrange) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* [[Current events]] - the most likely page to be up to date about current consultations | * [[Current events]] - the most likely page to be up to date about current consultations | ||
| − | * [[ | + | * [[Examples of good amicus briefs]] |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [[More than business]] - consultations about software patent policy shouldn't limit themselves to business interests | * [[More than business]] - consultations about software patent policy shouldn't limit themselves to business interests | ||
| − | |||
===Analyses of submissions for past consultations=== | ===Analyses of submissions for past consultations=== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 23: | ||
* [[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 [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] | * [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs]] - by the [[USA]]'s [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Pages about consultations=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The following have involved a consultation: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[1994 USPTO software patent hearings]] | ||
| + | * [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]] | ||
| + | * [[Gowers Review of Intellectual Property]] (2006, [[UK]]) | ||
| + | * [[EPO EBoA referral G3-08]] | ||
| + | * ...plus many court cases, such as those at [[Reading case law#Case_law_around_the_world]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 23:44, 25 November 2010
- (for ongoing consultations, see Current events)
Sometimes patent offices, government bodies, seek comments from the public and courts sometimes allow third parties to submit amicus briefs.
These consultations are usually performed in a way that systematically exaggerates the influence of patent lawyers and very large organisations. Redressing this imbalance means you have to participate, and you have to get other stakeholders to participate too.
Contents
A biased sample responds (mostly lawyers)
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 susceptible 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
- Examples of good amicus briefs
- More than business - consultations about software patent policy shouldn't limit themselves to business interests
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
Pages about consultations
The following have involved a consultation:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept
- Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006, UK)
- EPO EBoA referral G3-08
- ...plus many court cases, such as those at Reading case law#Case_law_around_the_world
