Difference between revisions of "Consultations from government bodies and courts"
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: rearrange) |
(==Consulations which ESP didn't participate in== The following is a list of consultations which, unfortunately, ESP did not hear about in time to participate. Newest first: * Indian patent offi) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Analyses of submissions for past consultations== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[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]]'' | ||
| + | * [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs]] - by the [[USA]]'s [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Consulations which ESP didn't participate in== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The following is a list of consultations which, unfortunately, [[ESP]] did not hear about in time to participate. Newest first: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Indian patent office draft manual, consultation closed 4 Dec 2010 | ||
| + | * [http://www.ipblog.ca/?p=400 Canada's patent office on "computer-implemented inventions"], 16 June to 19 Aug 2010 | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 30: | ||
* [[Examples of good amicus briefs]] | * [[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 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Pages about consultations=== | ===Pages about consultations=== | ||
Revision as of 13:27, 9 December 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.
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
Consulations which ESP didn't participate in
The following is a list of consultations which, unfortunately, ESP did not hear about in time to participate. Newest first:
- Indian patent office draft manual, consultation closed 4 Dec 2010
- Canada's patent office on "computer-implemented inventions", 16 June to 19 Aug 2010
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
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
