Difference between revisions of "Consultations from government bodies and courts"
(Sometimes patent offices, government bodies, or courts seek comments from the public.) |
m (→Past consultations: Category:Consultations) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* [[EPO EBA referral G3-08]] - by the ''[[European Patent Office]]'' | * [[EPO EBA referral 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 Supreme Court | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Consultations]] | ||
Revision as of 11:05, 4 January 2010
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.
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
Past consultations
- Australian consultation responses 2009 - by the Australian government's Advisory Council on Intellectual Property
- EPO EBA referral G3-08 - by the European Patent Office
- Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs - by the USA's Supreme Court
