[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

I think this is a valid and important market sign to consider by politicians working with new patent law and treaties. If insurance for malpractice is so high it means that the economic impact of this kind of work is low. It is what we call patent inflation. 
 
However the main factors mentioned here are not these on software patents, but the common practice of application deadline insurance and shortage of insurance capital.
 
Yes but we have to look at exactly why the premiums are rocketing. According to one lawyer it is because clients are exaggerating the value of their so-called "inventions". This is far easier to do now that the requirement for a physical product being realised has been scrapped, and any business method or piece of software can be said to be an "invention". If the rules were tighter as they should be since patents are supposed to be monopolies for genuine inventions requiring large investment for research  , then they wouldn't have the problem of client filing overload.
 
This becomes all the more of a risk with software patents, since they require no new physical product or process to materialise - and I don't think that it is any coincidence that the rise of trivial business process patents have been in concert with the rocketing insurance costs.
 
 Sincerely,
 
Christian



(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)