IBM's move: incredibly powerful stuff? No way!
Although software.seekingalpha suggests the IBM disclosure move is a big deal, it really isn't.
Jason Wood submits: IBM (IBM) has made an immensely important and forward-thinking step in helping foster innovation by leading the way for patent reform. The New York Times has an article today outlining IBM's plans to revamp its patent disclosure and filing process.
(...)
This is INCREDIBLY powerful stuff, and hopefully will light a fire under the current administration to expedite its long-debated patent reform legislation. Patent filings and litigation resulting from those filings has exploded in recent years. The absurdity of some of the filings is unquestionable. Big Blue has been granted more U.S. patents than any other company for 13 consecutive years (and are probably a good bet to take the crown again in 2006), with just under 3,000 issued last year. One would think they have a vested interest in protecting the status quo, but in fact they're pushing the envelope.
Amazing how gullible some people are in the area of intellectual property. If Mr. Wood thinks this is "pushing the envelope," he needs a new life, maybe collecting stamps.
Bill Heinze wrote:
Woo hoo
and
Aye Caraumba. . .
***
The 271blog has a post: Deconstructing IBM's "Public Patent Review" in which one issue raised is the conversion of 102(e) art into 102(b) art by publishing the application earlier than would be the case [it would appear that IBM's doing the industry a big favor by possibly converting a lot of 102(e) art into 102(b) art. A patent filed more than a year before another patent still gives the subsequent patentee some wiggle room to swear behind the first patent. If the patent publishes more than a year before, the second patent's dead. I like this aspect of the program, especially in light of the current level of patent pendency at the USPTO. This could also be helpful in uncovering "secret" prior art (i.e., patents that haven't published yet) when preparing patent applications.]
IPBiz notes: a different aspect seems to be that comments ABOUT the IBM applications are directed to IBM over a six month window period. Does anybody remember the controversy about the IBM patent server (Delphion) wherein IBM was purportedly keeping track of the requests to determine "who" was interested in "what"? Thus, although the requestor got (at the time) free patent information, the requestor effectively provided information about requestor. Is the present IBM comment system a different approach to determine who is interested in what?
Jason Wood submits: IBM (IBM) has made an immensely important and forward-thinking step in helping foster innovation by leading the way for patent reform. The New York Times has an article today outlining IBM's plans to revamp its patent disclosure and filing process.
(...)
This is INCREDIBLY powerful stuff, and hopefully will light a fire under the current administration to expedite its long-debated patent reform legislation. Patent filings and litigation resulting from those filings has exploded in recent years. The absurdity of some of the filings is unquestionable. Big Blue has been granted more U.S. patents than any other company for 13 consecutive years (and are probably a good bet to take the crown again in 2006), with just under 3,000 issued last year. One would think they have a vested interest in protecting the status quo, but in fact they're pushing the envelope.
Amazing how gullible some people are in the area of intellectual property. If Mr. Wood thinks this is "pushing the envelope," he needs a new life, maybe collecting stamps.
Bill Heinze wrote:
Woo hoo
and
Aye Caraumba. . .
***
The 271blog has a post: Deconstructing IBM's "Public Patent Review" in which one issue raised is the conversion of 102(e) art into 102(b) art by publishing the application earlier than would be the case [it would appear that IBM's doing the industry a big favor by possibly converting a lot of 102(e) art into 102(b) art. A patent filed more than a year before another patent still gives the subsequent patentee some wiggle room to swear behind the first patent. If the patent publishes more than a year before, the second patent's dead. I like this aspect of the program, especially in light of the current level of patent pendency at the USPTO. This could also be helpful in uncovering "secret" prior art (i.e., patents that haven't published yet) when preparing patent applications.]
IPBiz notes: a different aspect seems to be that comments ABOUT the IBM applications are directed to IBM over a six month window period. Does anybody remember the controversy about the IBM patent server (Delphion) wherein IBM was purportedly keeping track of the requests to determine "who" was interested in "what"? Thus, although the requestor got (at the time) free patent information, the requestor effectively provided information about requestor. Is the present IBM comment system a different approach to determine who is interested in what?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home