Hem > Piratfrågor > Work

Work

Via IFOSSLR and SpicyIP I’ve been informed about the Peer-to-Patent system, in which patents are quality checked by peer review. especially since the Commission has been stressing the need for higher quality patents since 2008. In an industrial policy that is far from enlightened with respects to the benefit of sharing results of research in a non-commercial way, I might add (sadly, that is also completely compliant with this report from eutechnologytransfer.eu which explicitly refers to ”technology transfer” as something happening between public research institutions and private enterprises, contrary to the common usage of the term which is making accessible technology to public institutions that dont yet have access).

I’m wondering if the Peer-to-Patent system is something that could, or should, be discussed in relations to these and these recent EU proposals on Community Patents (they’re an old debate: basically the EU has been wanting pan-European patents since the 1960s but were pre-empted by the European Patent Convention, and now because of translation costs they’ve been on hold since the 1980s BUT because of the London Agreement perhaps they can be avoided). I didn’t have the time to read the most recent proposals on Community Patents yet but have had them briefed to me a couple of times.

Another report I didn’t have the time to read is a report on IPR and SMEs. There’s several ranging from ”SMEs need to be taught how to patent” to ”SMEs can’t enforce the IPR they do have” linked in the footnotes of some of the above-mentioned documents. I keep feeling they should have something to do with the IPR Observatory, but technically the problem addressed by Christian Engström with the constant mingling of copyright infringement and other types of IPR violations is a bummer. What irks me is that Charles McGreevy’s directorate-general manages to mix in copyright violations in a document stated explicitly not to contain copyright analyses.

Well, well. euwiki.org remains a good workspace for EU legislation and campaigns. This is the template for the Observatory work.

Kategorier:Piratfrågor
  1. december 11, 2009 kl. 11:01

    Hello !

    Nice to read about your work. This is Digged on: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Work_Amelia_Andersdotter

    My Digg history: http://digg.com/users/sunurb01/history

    Regards Urban

  2. december 11, 2009 kl. 20:15

    argh, it took me a few minutes to find the comment function… anyway.

    Please describe the Peer-to-Patent system! as I don’t belive in such a thing ;-)

    There is at least in Sweden a time for everyone to look at patents and raise their voice about it.
    http://www.prv.se/upload/dokument/Patent/Informationsblad/svenskt_patent_arendesgang.pdf Look for ”invändningstid”. I’ve never heard of a patent that has been declined because of this, though…

  3. december 12, 2009 kl. 07:51

    I like Peer-to-Patent, however I would observe that since patents have caused so much pain to open source developers in particular, it is a little rich that the patent offices now draw on peer production to improve the patent system, without offering anything back to the community in return.

  4. Rasmus
    december 14, 2009 kl. 22:32

    Hej, har skummat igenom rapporten om IPR och SME som du inte hade hunnit läsa. Några intressanta noteringar:

    I kap 2.3 påpekar de att en tillverkare som hela tiden förbättrar sin produkt har ett mycket effektivt skydd mot konkurrens från aktörer som bara härmar. Intressant att notera är att det är just så som man gör i branscher där det helt saknas möjligheter att skydda sin produkter med patent, mönsterskydd och liknande.


    Kap 2.3
    Certain measures described in this study will appeal particularly to smaller
    companies which are unable to find redress through conventional, and often costly,
    means. For example the continual introduction of incremental innovations to a
    product or service may prove to be an effective defence against a counterfeiter by
    making the activity prohibitively expensive (however continual innovation tends to
    be inherently costly for the rights holder too).

    I kap 3.4 argumenterar de starkt för att det är fel väg att gå om man försöker skydda sina produkter genom att dra piratkopierare inför domstol.


    Kap 3.4 Alternative methods of defending intellectual property

    The standard reference works covering IPR protection have traditionally been
    written by firms of lawyers or patent/trade mark attorneys, sources of advice that
    have naturally tended to concentrate on the registration of IPR and ways of gaining
    redress once a problem has been encountered. However the situation is changing and an increasing number of legal practitioners, as well as others advising in this area, now emulate the medical fraternity in stressing that prevention is better than cure.

    This section of the study report sets out a range of strategies and measures for
    consideration by companies operating in any environment where there is the risk of
    intellectual property being abused — which, to an experienced business person,
    means almost every market in the world. The methods discussed are those actively
    employed by individual businesses and trade associations and recommended by
    legal and specialist firms dealing with IPR abuse.

    The SME Survey asked respondents for details of the measures in this category,
    which they employ, and the results are given in the next section.

    3.4.1 Why counterfeiters gain the upper hand

    Why, exactly, is prevention better than cure? It could be argued that a powerful
    multinational corporation, with its patents and trade marks securely registered to
    cover the markets in which it is operating, would have little to fear from small
    counterfeiters. The IP rights owner can, after all, bring cases against infringers,
    confident that he will win because of his relative might and the legal position.

    Will this result in the closing down of the illegal factories and distribution networks
    with the infringers fined or jailed? That would be a naïve view: the realities of
    modern IPR infringement are very different. It is hard to keep ahead of the
    counterfeiters if one chooses to operate reactively and wait to sort out problems
    through litigation and other means only once they have appeared.

    I kapitel 3.4.6 kan vi läsa att det ofta är effektivt att helt enkelt köpa företaget eller verksamheten som tillverkar piratkopiorna.


    Another tactic sometimes used is for the company manufacturing or selling the genuine product to purchase a counterfeiting company outright. This may seem a strange way of dealing with an infringement but — setting aside regard to the illegality of the counterfeiter — it may make sense in purely commercial terms when one considers the counterfeiter’s knowledge of the product, market share and so on. (This practice is more prevalent than merely an occasional, peculiar case).

    I kapitel 3.4.6 argumenteras det också en väldig massa för att olika sätt att skapa affärshemligheter är effektivt. Dessutom så påpekar man att relationsmarknadsföring och byggandet av kundlojalitet är effektivt. Dvs exakt vad alla konsultfirmor vet, men produktproducerande företag ofta slarvar med.


    Another method of outwitting a counterfeiter is to offer a higher level of service than a counterfeiter would contemplate. In addition to a comprehensive and plausible after-sales service, it may be possible to offer the means of installing the product.
    Add-ons that differentiate the genuine item from the fake will tencustomer loyalty — even in the presence of lower-price counterfeits.

    Man argumenterar också i kapitel 3.4.6 för att göra varje exemplar till ett unikt föremål som man gör med sedlar (och konstverk).


    Many manufacturers incorporate subtle changes to packaging, or the product itself, that may go unnoticed by the but will help to identify copies in the event of action being taken, even though the packaging is outwardly a perfect replica.

    ”A Yorkshire man who has invented a product which weaves labels
    unique to each garment, could help to defeat the trade in counterfeit
    designer merchandise, it has been reported… Mr Ahmed’s patented
    procedure enables the designer to weave an invisible code into the
    product which can be used to certify the authenticity of the garment.
    Yorkshire Forward, November 2006 ”

    Banknotes provide an extreme example of this practice, with national banks making supreme efforts to make life difficult for forgers, as well as incorporating ways of identifying forgeries.

    I övrigt innehåller rapporten inget av större värde eller några nya korkade förslag, mest utmynnar det i att det behövs informationskampanjer.

  5. teirdez
    december 15, 2009 kl. 08:31

    Wow! Tack Rasmus :)

    Ska genast uppdatera http://euwiki.org/INI/2009/2178 men den här rapporten kommer, tydligen, kunna vara ett bra stöd i argumentationen kring de flesta förslag som har med SMEer och patent att göra. >:)

  6. teirdez
    december 15, 2009 kl. 08:33

    Egh. It’s described in most of the referring links.

    This appears to be a thorough critique of the system though:
    http://eupat.ffii.org/analysis/shield/#prio

  7. Rasmus
    december 16, 2009 kl. 00:41

    Varsågod, kul att du har nytta av det. Dessutom så är SME affärsstrategier något som intresserar mig professionellt och jag hjälper gärna till igen inom det området.

    Så säg till om du behöver hjälp att läsa, analysera något eller bolla idéer. Antar att du har min mejl, annars hittar du mig genom mitt företag Äktafejk. http://www.äktafejk.se

    Hoppas du får bli MEP snart, du behövs där :)

    Ses

    Rasmus

  8. teirdez
    december 16, 2009 kl. 17:17

    These comments are arranged in a non-intuitive way. The above comment with the FFII link was meant for Anders Hedberg for instance, but that really doesn’t show at all :/

    The FFII link could possibly also be for Jeremy Malcolm. :O Boy did I ever sit through some long discussions about peer-reviews after publishing this post. _And_ I was forced to read patent applications+claims, just in case I would ever get the idea that the community would do this for its own gain again.

  1. januari 19, 2010 kl. 16:23

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: