ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Consultations from government bodies and courts"

(A biased sample responds (mostly lawyers))
(Pages about consultations: * US government 2011 innovation survey)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
:''(for ongoing consultations, see '''[[Current events]]''')''
 
:''(for ongoing consultations, see '''[[Current events]]''')''
  
:''And important ongoing consultation is '''[[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]'''.''
+
Sometimes patent offices, government bodies, seek comments from the public and courts sometimes allow third parties to submit amicus briefs.
  
Sometimes patent offices, government bodies, or courts seek comments from the public.
+
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.
 
 
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.
 
  
 
==A biased sample responds (mostly lawyers)==
 
==A biased sample responds (mostly lawyers)==
Line 12: Line 10:
 
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.
 
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.
+
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}}==
  
 
* [[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
* [[Organising a campaign]]
+
* [[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]]
 
* [[1994 USPTO software patent hearings]]
 +
* [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]
 +
* [[Gowers Review of Intellectual Property]] (2006, [[UK]])
 
* [[EPO EBoA referral G3-08‎]]
 
* [[EPO EBoA referral G3-08‎]]
* [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]
+
* [[Hargreaves 2011 review of UK patent law]]
 +
* [[US government 2011 innovation survey]]
 +
* ...plus many court cases, such as those at [[Reading case law#Case_law_around_the_world]]
  
===Analyses of submissions for past consultations===
+
==External links==
  
* [[Australian consultation responses 2009]] - by the [[Australia]]n government's ''Advisory Council on Intellectual Property''
+
* For [[Gowers Review of Intellectual Property]], UK, 2006:
* [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBA G3-08]] - by the ''[[European Patent Office]]''
+
** [http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Gowers_review_on_intellectual_property ORG collection of submissions]
* [[Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs]] - by the [[USA]]'s [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]
 
  
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
 
[[Category:Consultations|*]]
 
[[Category:Consultations|*]]

Latest revision as of 22:09, 16 June 2012

(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.

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

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:

Related pages on ESP Wiki

Pages about consultations

The following have involved a consultation:

External links