Ugliness in the WARF patent re-examination?
The Niche -- The Stem Cell blog had a post concerning the four (4) declarations solicited by FTCR (now Consumer Watchdog)
to support its position AGAINST the WARF patents [ WARF patent case gets uglier still]. Pertinent text is
Disclosing information is appropriate. But the main issue is whether existing techniques for deriving and culturing non-human embryonic stem cells at the time of the patents render University of Wisconsin’s James Thomson’s human techniques "obvious" and so unworthy of patent protection.
The Taxpayer Foundation’s John Simpson says the fact that prominent scientists have filed other patents is irrelevant. “What's germane is the obviousness of the existing three patents,” he says.
When people have an economic interest in their idea being right, it does not logically follow that the idea is wrong. WARF has a huge economic interest in upholding the validity of the patents after all. Critics with conflicts of interest can still make valid points.
Although IPBiz believes the general concept is correct (and Leon Trotsky can write about the Russian Revolution), Monya Baker missed the point of what was going on. More importantly, as is evident from the USPTO decision, Baker got the outcome wrong. The "valid point" were deemed conclusory. The references were found not enabling. How did Baker miss this?
Comment -->
Of the past, of the matter --failed to declare that they have filed patents in human embryonic stem cells in their statements --, the problem is that the declarations filed by the scientists in the context of their patent APPLICATIONS would be inconsistent with the declarations filed in WARF MATTER, creating a credibility issue.
Of the present, the declarations of the scientists were dismissed by the USPTO as being conclusory. The references relied upon by FTCR (now going under the name Consumer Watchdog) were ruled "not enabled" (ie, science fiction as to the claims) and the arguments made by FTCR were rejected.
[The Niche did NOT post the comment.]
to support its position AGAINST the WARF patents [ WARF patent case gets uglier still]. Pertinent text is
Disclosing information is appropriate. But the main issue is whether existing techniques for deriving and culturing non-human embryonic stem cells at the time of the patents render University of Wisconsin’s James Thomson’s human techniques "obvious" and so unworthy of patent protection.
The Taxpayer Foundation’s John Simpson says the fact that prominent scientists have filed other patents is irrelevant. “What's germane is the obviousness of the existing three patents,” he says.
When people have an economic interest in their idea being right, it does not logically follow that the idea is wrong. WARF has a huge economic interest in upholding the validity of the patents after all. Critics with conflicts of interest can still make valid points.
Although IPBiz believes the general concept is correct (and Leon Trotsky can write about the Russian Revolution), Monya Baker missed the point of what was going on. More importantly, as is evident from the USPTO decision, Baker got the outcome wrong. The "valid point" were deemed conclusory. The references were found not enabling. How did Baker miss this?
Comment -->
Of the past, of the matter --failed to declare that they have filed patents in human embryonic stem cells in their statements --, the problem is that the declarations filed by the scientists in the context of their patent APPLICATIONS would be inconsistent with the declarations filed in WARF MATTER, creating a credibility issue.
Of the present, the declarations of the scientists were dismissed by the USPTO as being conclusory. The references relied upon by FTCR (now going under the name Consumer Watchdog) were ruled "not enabled" (ie, science fiction as to the claims) and the arguments made by FTCR were rejected.
[The Niche did NOT post the comment.]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 2:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home