Scams – a Timely Reminder

The latest (13 January 2013) issue of WIPO’s PCT Newsletter (which can always be found here in HTML format, with back issues available here in PDF format) includes a timely reminder about unofficial requests for payment of fees, otherwise known as IP registration scams.

It has been a while since we have reminded readers about patent application registration scams.  Only slightly more recently, we reported on the rise of trade mark renewal ‘services’, which send unsolicited letters to trade mark owners offering to pay upcoming renewal fees for a not-so-modest commission.

Clearly, the trade mark renewal services are still operating, no doubt with some success.  We recently handled a phone enquiry from a client who had received a notice from the company calling itself Patent & Trademark Organisation offering to pay the renewal on a trade mark that was not due for 18 months!  That is certainly getting in early, since it is not even possible to pay the renewal fee until 12 months prior to the current expiry date.  Of course, an organisation sending unsolicited offers to pay renewal fees needs to make sure they get in ahead of the owner’s existing service providers!

Additionally, we received a new comment on our earlier post just this month, from somebody who had unfortunately been taken in by a renewal service letter, as well as one back in December 2012 from somebody else who was not.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Scams

White House in Disappointing Death Star Rebuff

The response of the White House to a recent petition urging the US government to construct a Death Star demonstrates exactly what has gone wrong with America today.

The Administration provided three main reasons for deflecting the will of the people, which basically boil down to:

1. it is too expensive;
2. it is too dangerous; and
3. it is just not good enough.

Once upon a time, we could have expected better from the executive leadership of the world's most powerful nation.  When someone suggested that America stick it to the commies by putting the first man on the Moon, did JFK say 'nah, it costs too much'?  No, he did not.  He said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

And in doing so, he inspired a nation, and a world.

Then he set about applying great American ingenuity to the task, as provided by great Americans like Dr Wernher Von Braun, who was flexible enough to move from the V-2 to the Saturn V since, as the equally great American political analyst Tom Lehrer would later put it, 'Once ze rockets go up, who cares vere zey come down: zat's not my department...'.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Humour, Innovation policy, US

Australian Patent Grants Plateau in 2012, Microsoft Slips to No. 6

The chart to the left shows the total numbers of patents granted in Australia on an annual basis between 1992 and 2012. Having reached unprecedentedly high levels in 2010 and 2011, the number of granted patents appears to have plateaued.

In 2012, the Johnson & Johnson-owned surgical supplies company Ethicon Endo Surgery was the number one recipient of newly-minted patents in Australia, more than doubling the number of Australian patents it received in 2011, to reach a grand total of 250 for the year.  This could hardly have been a more different outcome from the corresponding US results, where not just the top 10, but the entire top 50, is dominated by ICT and other tech-sector companies.

The other notable fact about the number of patents granted in Australia in 2012 is that the total appears to have plateaued at around 19,500 per year.  However, as we have explained previously, since IP Australia still has a significant examination backlog, the number of patents granted is not a function of the number filed in the previous years, but rather of the number and efficiency of examiners working their way through the waiting list.  Apparently, there was little change in the available resources last year, although we understand that IP Australia has recently been recruiting more new examiners.

As for the US results, this week, patent research company IFI CLAIMS Patent Services released its annual list of the top 50 assignees of US patents issued in the previous year.  There are no surprises at the top of the list, with IBM coming in at number one for the 20^th successive year.  Samsung is again number two, though this year IBM has actually pulled ahead a little.  Third-placed Canon is not even close to the top two, running nearly 2000 patents behind Samsung.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Australia, News, Statistics, US

‘Software Patents’ – A Problem of Definition?

It is no secret that the folks at the technology news site Ars Technica are no fans of patents in general, or of ‘software patents’ in particular.  It was Ars that got stuck into Australian scientific research body CSIRO last year, because it had the temerity to invent something useful for wireless communications nearly 20 years ago, and then sue those companies that made millions from devices implementing the technology, while stubbornly refusing to enter into meaningful negotiations over licensing.

Last month, Ars reported the donation of US$500,000 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the creation of the ‘Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents’, while bemoaning the fact that the EFF is looking ‘only’ to reform the patent system, while ‘[shying] away from calling for the abolition of software patents altogether’.

In our opinion, however, it is to the credit of the EFF that it is at least trying to engage with the issues around ‘software patents’ in a more nuanced manner.  However, there is a far greater problem with almost all debate around this issue than whether or not it should be about ‘abolition’ or ‘reform’.  The single most fundamental matter that must be resolved before we can have any type of meaningful discussion about ‘software patents’ is for us to agree on what we are talking about.

To put it simply, what is a ‘software patent’?

Not only has the EFF so far failed to address this question, it appears to have completely failed to recognise that it is an issue.  To see this, you need look no further than the EFF’s ‘Defend Innovation’ project site.  Starting with the first point of the proposed reforms, we see that ‘a patent covering software’ should have a shorter term than other patents.  OK, this is something we could meaningfully talk about.  Many software-based inventions do not require the same duration of protection in order to provide a fair return to their inventors when compared to, say, pharmaceutical products.

But what is a patent ‘covering software’?  Does this mean a patent with claims that could encompass a software-based implementation of the invention, even if the patent specification additionally, or alternatively, describes a hardware-based implementation?  What if part of the invention is implemented in software, and part in hardware?  Should a competing product have some form of defence to infringement after the shortened period if it is implemented in software, but not if it is implemented in hardware?  What if the invention cannot be implemented in software at the time of patenting, but then advances in technology and processing speeds make this practical later in the term of the patent?

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Business processes, Computer programs, Patentable subject matter

Top Fives: What You Read, and What We Liked, in 2012

Firstly, we would like to wish all of our readers a very happy New Year, and all the best for 2013!

As arbitrary as the exercise may be, the roll-over of the date provides a prompt for many people to review the past year, take stock, evaluate successes and failures, and prepare for the challenges of the coming year.  Those who thought that the ‘Mayan Apocalypse’ would get them off the hook this time around are no doubt sorely disappointed, and under-prepared for the annual soul-searching!

In this general spirit, we are pleased to present your, and our, ‘top fives’ of 2012.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Patentology admin