ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Patent lawyers"
("''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 ind) |
m (that rate was 77%.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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'''. | 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 [[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]]: |
:"''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.''" | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Support exceptionally high among patent lawyers== | ==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 | + | 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%. |
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
Revision as of 01:21, 21 September 2009
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."
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%.
