ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

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

(Redressing this imbalance means ''you'' have to participate, and you have to get other stakeholders to participate too.)
(Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Current events - the most likely page to be up to date about current consultations)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 +
* [[Current events]] - the most likely page to be up to date about current consultations
 +
 
===Analyses of submissions for past consultations===
 
===Analyses of submissions for past consultations===
  

Revision as of 01:55, 21 February 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

Analyses of submissions for past consultations