tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2285576346298332938..comments2024-03-19T12:09:41.188+00:00Comments on The IPKat: First to file, first to invent: disclosure of inventions and the Wayback machineVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24247953708747018302013-04-15T17:45:50.203+01:002013-04-15T17:45:50.203+01:00My position is based on numerous examples over the...My position is based on numerous examples over the years and is not based on a single bad experience.<br /><br />Shopping around is not the answer. I know several good patent attorneys, but many bad ones.<br /><br />Oh, forgot to mention. I am a patent attorney myself. I speak with knowledge and experience and would not label my opinion 'IMHO'.<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear some justification from attorneys as to why they believe they are worth upwards of £300 per hour, other than 'that is the going rate because we are a closed shop and that is what we all charge'.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72757973652002066752013-04-15T11:43:53.215+01:002013-04-15T11:43:53.215+01:00In response to Anonymous of Sunday, 14 April 2013 ...In response to Anonymous of Sunday, 14 April 2013 13:26:00 BST I would advise that please shop around. If you are not satisfied with your patent attorney then go to another. There are good ones who provide value for money and wish to be as helpful as possible. I find for some reason that people are reluctant to do this, and assume from one bad experience that all patent attorneys are the same. We are not.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65076183984626821252013-04-14T13:26:15.567+01:002013-04-14T13:26:15.567+01:00The problem with the patent system in this country...The problem with the patent system in this country is cost and incompetence. It is a closed shop for a style of pseudo-lawyer (patent attorneys and IP lawyers alike) that lacks an appropriate understanding of the relevant technology and of research-based business and is unable to apply basic legal principles to such matters. 'Interdisciplinary' and 'multidisciplinary' are concepts not associated with many of the attorneys I have the misfortune to deal with.<br /><br />'Bookworms'? Yes. Rule followers'? Yes. 'Highly educated'? Yes. 'Good patent lawyers'? Absolutely not. The IP profession needs a complete overhaul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29469091893638085592013-04-12T20:56:53.560+01:002013-04-12T20:56:53.560+01:00You ask what should be the rules. To Merpel's ...You ask what should be the rules. To Merpel's two requirements I would add a third, for me the most important.<br /><br />Increasing numbers of people in positions of influence are setting against the patent system. Increasing numbers of engineers and scientists are setting against the patent system. They are doing so because they perceive the rules to be made for the convenience of lawyers and not the good of society. So we need rules that strike everybody as sensible and good for promoting the progress of useful arts, nurturing the progress of technology and achieving a simple balance between fair protection for inventors and maximum legal certainty for the public. With clear clean rules that even academics can accept, inventions will get the protection they deserve. When that happens, criticism of the patent system will subside.<br /><br />Otherwise it is only going to get louder.<br /><br />So let us push the existing EPC Rules, proven, tried and tested, simple, and workable. If these are explained to the critics they might then get behind them. the criticisms of them do not stand up to scrutiny. See the Tegernsee scrolls. If the Rules are more complicated than that, inventors will ignore them, and then shout foul when they don't get the protection to which they suppose they are entitled. Not good.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38594313041286460932013-04-12T16:07:31.225+01:002013-04-12T16:07:31.225+01:00I always thought the ROW had a first-to-file syste...I always thought the ROW had a first-to-file system as opposed to a first-inventor-to-file system. All my clients are in for a nasty shock when I give them the bad news that their patents, not filed in the inventor's name, are invalid. I'll wait until Monday so as not to spoil their weekend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24214299108205690422013-04-12T12:36:00.182+01:002013-04-12T12:36:00.182+01:00The problems with the WayBack Machine as a reliabl...The problems with the WayBack Machine as a reliable repository of prior art were quite conclusively shown in <a href="http://www.managingip.com/Article/2893466/Manipulate-archived-internet-pages-Yes-we-can.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a> and the related Belgian court case. The WayBack Machine archives HTML script, not the objects embedded in the archived web pages (notably image files). If the webadmin replaces the objects linked to in the HTML script while keeping the same URLs, the replacements will be shown in the "archived" web page instead of the original objects...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31456258517556221762013-04-12T11:46:38.073+01:002013-04-12T11:46:38.073+01:00The idea of publishing inventions on web pages and...The idea of publishing inventions on web pages and their use as prior art was tested in a contrived case - T1553/06.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53397791671708258682013-04-12T09:12:18.710+01:002013-04-12T09:12:18.710+01:00Re Chris Torero's comment about the Wayback Ma...Re Chris Torero's comment about the Wayback Machine, although there may have been a case where the contents of the Wayback Machine were considered not sufficient to establish a publication date, it is to be remarked that the official position of the EPO is that archiving services and computer-generated timestamps are considered reliable means to assign a date to a disclosure. In particular, the new Guidelines, G-IV, 7.5.4.(a), state that in case of doubt, the examiner may refer to:<br /><br />"Information relating to a web page available from an internet archiving service. The most prominent such service is the Internet Archive accessible through the so-called "Wayback Machine" (www.archive.org). The fact that the Internet Archive is incomplete does not detract from the credibility of the data it does archive. It is also noted that legal disclaimers relating to the accuracy of any supplied information are routinely used on websites (even respected sources of information such as Espacenet or IEEE), and these disclaimers should not be taken to reflect negatively on the websites' actual accuracy. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43579196309193594812013-04-11T15:57:31.347+01:002013-04-11T15:57:31.347+01:00Has there been any case in the last fifty years in...Has there been any case in the last fifty years in which a US "small inventor" succeeded in a claim to be the first inventor against a large company?Philip Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09944496163799386793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68038714245923841852013-04-11T15:50:42.750+01:002013-04-11T15:50:42.750+01:00The fact of the matter is that, in effect, the US ...The fact of the matter is that, in effect, the US did have a first-to-file system prior to 16 March 2013. The number of interferences had fallen to a very low number, and in any disputes relating to who invented first, the winner was almost invariably the party with the earlier priority date. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com