ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Patent lawyers"

m (rm "people" cat, since it's not exactly - but I see that this article has to be linked to from somewhere, so I linked it on the Main Page)
(links)
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Be careful of '''patent lawyers'''.  They make money by filing patents and bringing software developers to court.  It's always in their financial interest to say that software patents are and should be valid.
+
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]]:
  
{{Please help|It would be good to have some classic examples to illustrate the point}}.
+
<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>
  
 +
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|case law of the courts]] and [[Patent office case law|the patent offices]], and how they differ between [[Countries and regions|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:
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 +
* [[Which sectors are for and against]]?
 +
* [[Dan Ravicher]] - a patent lawyer that campaigns ''against'' software patents
 +
* [[Clogging up the legal system]]
 +
 +
==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: [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
 +
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
 +
 +
 +
{{footer}}
 
[[Category:Legal topics]]
 
[[Category:Legal topics]]
 
[[Category:Campaigning]]
 
[[Category:Campaigning]]
 
[[Category:Underhand tactics]]
 
[[Category:Underhand tactics]]

Latest revision as of 13:48, 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 courts and the patent offices, and how they differ between 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]

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References