Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Bernhard Kaindl <bernhard.kaindl@gmx.de>]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> > I would not only change this but also the effects of patent nullification
> > allow the patent system to find a balance.
>
> We have proposed such things before, e.g.
>
>       http://www.eurolinux.org/news/cpat01B/index.en.html#inval
[corrected:]
>       http://swpat.ffii.org/briefe/patg2C/
>
> It would be difficult to get this inserted into the software patent
> directive now.

Agreed, especially for the radical approach described below
"Debureaucratisation of the Patent System"(which migh be the best)
seems to be better reachable in small steps, and I think one of the
first steps could be to only change the invalidating/narrowing
implications:

"If someone succeeds in invalidating or narrowing a patent,
he receives, in addition to twice the reimbursement of ligitation
costs, an incentive payment from the patent office which granted it,
which has to be twice the amount the patent office received in the
granting and maintenance process so far, extended by an interest rate
of 10% per year."

Rationale:

I would not attempt to ask to get the incentive payment from the
company which owns the patent because big companies can always
operate thru some small, possibly independent looking companies
which run patent appliance and litigation and even if this would
not occur, the patent may be sold or may have been applied to/by
a company which is already bankruped, so I think the patent office
which granted the patent has to take the responsibility and it's
has to be problem of the patent office to recourse moneny if it
thinks it is not accountable for it's actions.

Thanks for any comments!

Bernhard