UK patent official: European patent examiners are not interested in whether or not something will work
In the patent reform debate in the United States in 2005, there was a lot of talk about how the US granted a higher percentage of patents than did Europe. Well, look what Hwang-gate has brought us. The UK Patent Office does not have a problem with the fake work! A patent official is quoted: European patent examiners are not interested in whether or not something will work. The journal New Scientist said Hwang's application will have a TOUGHER time in the United States: the journal contended the patent application has a slim chance of getting the green light in the United States where applications have to be backed up with material evidence of their validity. Where are Steve Merrill and the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] when we need them to tell New Scientist and the UK patent office that European examiners are supposed to be harsher on applicants than the old softie the USPTO?
Recall that in the Jan-Hendrik Schon fraud, Bell Labs pulled the plug on the patent applications long before Science and Nature retracted the scientific publications. Here, with the PCT applications of Hwang Woo-Suk, the journal Science pulled the plug on the 2004 and 2005 publications but the PCTs live on. The New Scientist is correct that any US filing based on the PCT will have some problems. I wonder if any of the inventors will sign the declaration?
Anyway, of the article in the New Scientist, from
The Korea Times:
By Kim Tae-gyu
Staff Reporter
New Scientist, the British journal, Friday reported that Korea¡¯s disgraced cloning researcher Hwang Woo-suk will be granted patents, even though his stem cell technologies are discredited.
The magazine said what matters in Europe is whether an invention is novel, inventive and sufficiently described, while fraud is not grounds for invalidating a patent.
``Unproven ideas are often be easily patented because there is a good chance no one has previously filed the same claim,¡¯¡¯ the journal said.
Hwang filed an application for his purported technologies of getting stem cell batches from cloned human embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer, together with his 19 associates at Seoul National University (SNU).
Hwang asked for a legal monopoly of the skills in Europe on Dec. 2003, based on a sample embryonic stem cell line deposited with the Korean Cell Line Research Foundation.
The problem is that the cell line proved to be a hoax by the peer-review committee of SNU, which issued its full report discrediting most of Hwang¡¯s once-hailed cloning exploits early this month.
However, the United Kingdom Patent Office told New Scientist that European patent examiners are not interested in whether or not something will work.
``The commercial world, which is where patents belong, will judge. As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws _ like time travel _ research has no bearing on granting a patent,¡¯¡¯ said Lawrence Smith-Higgins at the office.
The SNU also does not currently intend to abandon the stem cell-related patent applications contrary to some media reports here, a university official said.
``Hwang and his crew applied for the international patents and we are now thinking about how to go on with them,¡¯¡¯ said the official who declined to be named.
However, the journal contended the patent application has a slim chance of getting the green light in the United States where applications have to be backed up with material evidence of their validity.
Recall that in the Jan-Hendrik Schon fraud, Bell Labs pulled the plug on the patent applications long before Science and Nature retracted the scientific publications. Here, with the PCT applications of Hwang Woo-Suk, the journal Science pulled the plug on the 2004 and 2005 publications but the PCTs live on. The New Scientist is correct that any US filing based on the PCT will have some problems. I wonder if any of the inventors will sign the declaration?
Anyway, of the article in the New Scientist, from
The Korea Times:
By Kim Tae-gyu
Staff Reporter
New Scientist, the British journal, Friday reported that Korea¡¯s disgraced cloning researcher Hwang Woo-suk will be granted patents, even though his stem cell technologies are discredited.
The magazine said what matters in Europe is whether an invention is novel, inventive and sufficiently described, while fraud is not grounds for invalidating a patent.
``Unproven ideas are often be easily patented because there is a good chance no one has previously filed the same claim,¡¯¡¯ the journal said.
Hwang filed an application for his purported technologies of getting stem cell batches from cloned human embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer, together with his 19 associates at Seoul National University (SNU).
Hwang asked for a legal monopoly of the skills in Europe on Dec. 2003, based on a sample embryonic stem cell line deposited with the Korean Cell Line Research Foundation.
The problem is that the cell line proved to be a hoax by the peer-review committee of SNU, which issued its full report discrediting most of Hwang¡¯s once-hailed cloning exploits early this month.
However, the United Kingdom Patent Office told New Scientist that European patent examiners are not interested in whether or not something will work.
``The commercial world, which is where patents belong, will judge. As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws _ like time travel _ research has no bearing on granting a patent,¡¯¡¯ said Lawrence Smith-Higgins at the office.
The SNU also does not currently intend to abandon the stem cell-related patent applications contrary to some media reports here, a university official said.
``Hwang and his crew applied for the international patents and we are now thinking about how to go on with them,¡¯¡¯ said the official who declined to be named.
However, the journal contended the patent application has a slim chance of getting the green light in the United States where applications have to be backed up with material evidence of their validity.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home