Difference between revisions of "Patent lawyers"
m (Reverted edits by 91.143.62.161 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(style) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Lord Justice Jacob said in his ruling on the 2006 [[UK]] case [[Aerotel v. Telco (2006, UK)|Aerotel v. Telco]]: | Lord Justice Jacob said in his ruling on the 2006 [[UK]] case [[Aerotel v. Telco (2006, UK)|Aerotel v. Telco]]: | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| + | If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the [exclusion] categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers== | ==Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| − | + | Whether anyone likes it or not, regardless of the outcome of [[Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)|Bilski]] at the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] software will remain patentable. Patent attorneys have always been at least one step ahead, and even if the Supreme Court tries to kill software patents we will figure out a way to characterize it so that it will be patentable.<ref>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/06/the-fundamental-unfairness-of-retroactively-applying-bilski/</ref> | |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
* 2009: [http://linux.ie/downloads/Barry_Moore.ogg Software Patents in Ireland, by Barry Moore (Ogg audio)] | * 2009: [http://linux.ie/downloads/Barry_Moore.ogg Software Patents in Ireland, by Barry Moore (Ogg audio)] | ||
* [http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/13770/sawyer-weighs-in-on-intellectual-ventures/ Sawyer Weighs In On Intellectual Ventures], February 2010, critical piece by [[Brad Feld]] and an unnamed patent lawyer friend | * [http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/13770/sawyer-weighs-in-on-intellectual-ventures/ Sawyer Weighs In On Intellectual Ventures], February 2010, critical piece by [[Brad Feld]] and an unnamed patent lawyer friend | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Legal topics]] | [[Category:Legal topics]] | ||
[[Category:Campaigning]] | [[Category:Campaigning]] | ||
[[Category:Underhand tactics]] | [[Category:Underhand tactics]] | ||
Revision as of 10:08, 25 August 2011
For most patent lawyers specialised in software, the patentability of software ideas is essential for the existence of their jobs. Their input is very valuable because they are experts in the field, but their financial interest in the pro-software-patent side of the debate must be kept in mind.
Lord Justice Jacob said in his ruling on the 2006 UK case Aerotel v. Telco:
If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the [exclusion] categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out.
Contents
Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers
When the European Commission held its Consultation Paper on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions in 2000, 6% of replies were in favour of software patents, but among respondents who identified themselves as "IP professionals", that rate was 77%.
Mentality
This is just a quote from one patent attorney, but it may explain the mentality of many:
Whether anyone likes it or not, regardless of the outcome of Bilski at the Supreme Court software will remain patentable. Patent attorneys have always been at least one step ahead, and even if the Supreme Court tries to kill software patents we will figure out a way to characterize it so that it will be patentable.[1]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Which sectors are for and against?
- Dan Ravicher a patent lawyer that campaigns against software patents
External links
- 2009-09-26: The Arguments For Patents for Business Methods and Software-Implemented Inventions, by "IP attorneys" Steven J. Henry and Eric L. Amundsen
- 2009: Software Patents in Ireland, by Barry Moore (Ogg audio)
- Sawyer Weighs In On Intellectual Ventures, February 2010, critical piece by Brad Feld and an unnamed patent lawyer friend
