Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[Sylvain Perchaud <sylvain@europe-shareware.org>]

Le jeudi 13 juin 2002, Stefano Costa a écrit:

>Personally I think that a better checking rule for prior art and a shorter
>patent grant period (like 5 years) is something that can make a workable
>solution.


You raise the right issues.

IMHO the life span of a patent (20 years) is one of the main problem for
softwares.
I discussed a long time about this problem with Bronwyn Hall (Berkeley
University), and it seems that american are finding too that a 20 year
monopole create dangerous market imperfections. A right duration would be
3 to 5 years.

Unfortunately lawyers always refer to their Holy Text, the TRIPS treaty,
saying that all patents last for 20 years.

Concerning reforms for the checking rules, I'm not at all convinced, the
Patent Offices (as their history has shown), never comply to strict rules
because the more patents they grant, the more money they receive.
They haven't any incentive to follow the rules.


I think that patents aren't the right IP for softwares, a kind of utility
model (short life span, non-exclusive licencing...) would be more appropriate.
Another reform to engage would be to charge exponential fees after the 3
first years of the patent to dissuade companies to keep useless patents
in their portfolio.


But I agree that patents on hardware-related softwares (such as many
embedded systems) could be granted in Europe since R&D costs aren't low.

--
Sylvain Perchaud
http://www.europe-shareware.org