ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Patent lawyers"

(Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Clogging up the legal system)
(many patent lawyers who talk about software patents but actually have only a very shallow knowledge of the legal details of the case law of the patent offices and the courts in various countries.)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
Most '''patent lawyers''' specialised in software make money from getting or litigating [[software patents]], so they're biased toward saying that software is and should be patentable.  Their financial interest was mentioned by Lord Justice Jacob said in the [[Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006]]:
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 patents|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 (2006, UK)|Aerotel v. Telco]]:
 
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<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.
 
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>
 
</blockquote>
 +
 +
Some lawyers can provide very important information about the technical aspects of the law.  But there are also many patent lawyers who talk about software patents but actually have only a very shallow knowledge of the legal details of the case law of the patent offices and the courts in various countries.
  
 
==Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers==
 
==Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers==
Line 19: Line 18:
 
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>
 
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>
 +
 +
==How to spot a lawyer that knows nothing==
 +
 +
Some IT law firms try to look knowledgeable by putting a page on their website about software patents, despite having only very shallow knowledge.  You can spot these because
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
  
 
* [[Which sectors are for and against]]?
 
* [[Which sectors are for and against]]?
* [[Dan Ravicher]] a patent lawyer that campaigns ''against'' software patents
+
* [[Dan Ravicher]] - a patent lawyer that campaigns ''against'' software patents
 
* [[Clogging up the legal system]]
 
* [[Clogging up the legal system]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 +
 
* 2009-09-26: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090926131450794 The Arguments For Patents for Business Methods and Software-Implemented Inventions], by "[[IP]] attorneys" Steven J. Henry and Eric L. Amundsen
 
* 2009-09-26: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090926131450794 The Arguments For Patents for Business Methods and Software-Implemented Inventions], by "[[IP]] attorneys" Steven J. Henry and Eric L. Amundsen
 
* 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)]

Revision as of 13:45, 8 June 2013

Most patent lawyers specialised in software make money from getting or litigating software patents, so they're biased toward saying that software is and should be patentable. Their financial interest was mentioned by Lord Justice Jacob said in the Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October 2006:

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.

Some lawyers can provide very important information about the technical aspects of the law. But there are also many patent lawyers who talk about software patents but actually have only a very shallow knowledge of the legal details of the case law of the patent offices and the courts in various countries.

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]

How to spot a lawyer that knows nothing

Some IT law firms try to look knowledgeable by putting a page on their website about software patents, despite having only very shallow knowledge. You can spot these because

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References