The Market Mogul covers why the European Patent Office's (EPO) current patent filing system may be stifling innovation. Among many other reasons, the European Patent Office prioritizes the applications from large multinationals over smaller European businesses from any of 38 European nations. Not quite half of all European patent applications come from the EPO member states, followed by the US, Japan, China and South Korea. Another large point of contention caused by the EPO is their granting of software patents in direct violations of the European Patent Convention (EPC).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Is European Patent Office Filing a Rigged Game in Europe?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 8 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 3, Informative) by pTamok on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:38PM
Techrights.org [techrights.org] has been covering what has been going on at the EPO for a while now. For some reason, I find it impossible to navigate the site itself, but the RSS feed [techrights.org] works simply and well for me.
It makes for interesting/enlightening reading.
I have no affiliation to the site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:53PM
Where else?
Is European Patent Office Filing a Rigged Game in... South America? Antarctica? Tropical Pacific Islands?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Virindi on Saturday September 09 2017, @06:34PM (4 children)
Patents are a captured, rigged game everywhere. How is this news to people? The whole point of patents in the modern era is to "protect" the biggest from being challenged.
And most people seem just fine with a world of only a few huge companies in every industry. Most people just see it as the way of the world. It's not a natural market effect, it always has to be maintained by slimy backroom deals and regulators like these.
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Saturday September 09 2017, @08:09PM
FTFY. That was the purpose since day one -- in return for filling the king's coffers.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 5, Informative) by qzm on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:58PM (1 child)
Pretty much this.
After having spent several years trying to get a patent accepted in the US (after being accepted in a range of other countries) it certainly becomes apparently how twisted the system is.
This was not a 'software patent', and was for a system that was unique and in use (by us..)
In the us they played 'denial pingpong' where they would wait as long as possible, then bring up another unrelated patent as being prior-art. we would respond immediately with the reasons why it was not.
They would then wait the maximum time, and bring up a second patent as prior art, we would respond again. they would then wait and bring up the first one again.
After several times through this process is became apparent that they were simply refusing the allow the patent, and it would never proceed.
Shockingly, about a year after that, they awarded a nearly identical patent to a much much larger US domestic organisation - one we have approached shortly after filing our patent application.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday September 10 2017, @12:09PM
You need to contact the local industry groups and survey how widespread this problem is. The lawyers are benefiting financially from the reapplications so even if they know about it, they won't make an effort to reduce their billable hours by contacting officials themselves.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @04:50AM
It doesn't seem like the current patent system is of net value. It would take a dramatic revision to fix it. Instead of awarding patents for dramatically innovative work, it is awarding patents for work that is merely the result of diligent effort.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by kanweg on Saturday September 09 2017, @08:11PM
Just sent the author this e-mail:
In your article you wrote:
in fact, a scientist who wants to use a technique developed by another must check that there is no patent before that and royalties to be paid.
That is incorrect.
- The European patent convention states that the scope of protection is determined by national law (Art. 64(1)). So, irrespective of any vice of the EPO, they can’t be blamed for that.
- Typically, citizens can’t infringe and, nor can scientist, because for both groups it goes that they are not working the invention commercially.
Also, anyone is free to improve on another invention. That is actually the whole purpose of the patent system. Making sure that innovations are not kept secret and to make sure that they do get published. Visit espacenet.com and you can see all patent applications (when laid open after 18 months) from many countries and even old ones. There is even automatic translation in different languages, all free of charge.
Yours sincerely,
Bert
(Patent attorney)