ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Patent ambush"
m (Reverted edits by 175.145.98.31 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(→External links: * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/old-school-submarine-patents.html Old-School Submarine Patents], 15 Dec 2010, '''Patently-O''') |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | * [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/121611.shtml EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus], Aug 2007 | + | * [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/121611.shtml EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus], Aug 2007, '''techdirt''' |
| − | * [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070823/eu-rambus-patent-ambush/ EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush'], | + | * [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070823/eu-rambus-patent-ambush/ EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush'], Aug 2007, '''Huffington Post''' |
| + | * [http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html The Problem of Software Patents in Standards], '''[[Bruce Perens]]''' | ||
| + | * [http://moneyterms.co.uk/submarine-patent/ Definition of "submarine patent", describing patent ambush], '''moneyterms''' | ||
| + | * [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/08/more_qualcomm_problems/ Court finds Qualcomm guilty of standards abuse], 8 Aug 2007, '''The Register''' - the article lacks details - the ruling seems to form a defence against patent ambush, but what was that defence? | ||
| + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/old-school-submarine-patents.html Old-School Submarine Patents], 15 Dec 2010, '''Patently-O''' | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Patent ambush]] | * [[Wikipedia:Patent ambush]] | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Submarine patent]] | * [[Wikipedia:Submarine patent]] | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Laches (equity)]] | * [[Wikipedia:Laches (equity)]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
[[Category:Arguments]] | [[Category:Arguments]] | ||
Revision as of 11:40, 15 December 2010
Patent ambush is where a patent holder waits until a technology becomes popular, or until a company becomes rich, before launching an unexpected patent suit. The patents used in a patent ambush are often called "submarine patents" (although this term's original meaning was only for a certain type of ambush).
This problem exists in all patentable domains but it is particularly unjust in the case of software because the use of software is essential to almost every company, and distribution and development of software is very common (keeping in mind that developing a website is software development).
In some countries, the non-use of a patent could give a defence, known as laches, to alleged infringers.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Harm to standards
- All businesses have software patent risk
- When is patent abuse illegal?
- GIF - an Internet image file format covered by the LZW algorithm patent
- Patenting around what will become essential
External links
- EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus, Aug 2007, techdirt
- EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush', Aug 2007, Huffington Post
- The Problem of Software Patents in Standards, Bruce Perens
- Definition of "submarine patent", describing patent ambush, moneyterms
- Court finds Qualcomm guilty of standards abuse, 8 Aug 2007, The Register - the article lacks details - the ruling seems to form a defence against patent ambush, but what was that defence?
- Old-School Submarine Patents, 15 Dec 2010, Patently-O
- Wikipedia:Patent ambush
- Wikipedia:Submarine patent
- Wikipedia:Laches (equity)
