tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8987514946811869107..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Germans shun patents, but press for pat-val ISOVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41499443291867177612008-01-04T23:37:00.000+00:002008-01-04T23:37:00.000+00:00Just felt I should clarify. Mr Schade is with the ...Just felt I should clarify. Mr Schade is with the DPMA, not the VDMA. Mr Schade warns of the dangers of not filing for a patent protection. It is the VDMA who recommends to its members not to file for a patent unless the patent requires a certain level of know how, as this -again I summarise- will make it a lot more difficult to read and "unravel" the patent.Birgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17882060408284493612008-01-04T19:16:00.000+00:002008-01-04T19:16:00.000+00:00I think Anonymous's comment on reverse-engineering...I think Anonymous's comment on reverse-engineering is absolutely spot on. Before some Chinese companies hit on the idea of reading the patent specs, they were more keen on reverse engineering products. Actually I think that much of the copied technology is still reverse engineered than taken from patent specs. Given the fact that patent applications are anyway only published after 18 months, copying products is probably a faster way of getting them onto the market.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02789591295998616170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67581068105946637322008-01-04T18:08:00.000+00:002008-01-04T18:08:00.000+00:00Only patent if there is sufficient know how needed...Only patent if there is sufficient know how needed to make the patent uninformative => invalid patent. Or is there know how known to the person skilled in the art not known to all Chinese copyists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74358754081822306772008-01-04T14:23:00.000+00:002008-01-04T14:23:00.000+00:00I'm equally flummoxed by that recommendation, espe...I'm equally flummoxed by that recommendation, especially directed to the mechanical industry. Surely, apart from reading patent applications, Chinese (and other) copycats can (and do) also have a look at the machines themselves? If an invention is simple, it will be easy to duplicate with or without the help of the patent application's text. Only if the invention is complicated will the information from the patent application be a valuable help in reverse-engineering the invention. My advice would therefore be the exact opposite: patent simple inventions which will be disclosed anyway, and use the trade secret for the more arcane improvements that will not be immediately transparent to your competitors.<BR/><BR/>Probably, the journalist simply misquotes Mr. Schade, and what the latter meant is that patents should be reserved for the inventions with the highest added value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41127971141779396942008-01-04T07:15:00.000+00:002008-01-04T07:15:00.000+00:00Reading German patent publications is really quite...Reading German patent publications is really quite smart. German employee inventor law obliges the employer to file, whenever an employee "invents" something, so DE-drafted apps tend to be short (and, unlike some other jurisdictions, they say what the contribution to the art really is). The FT article will give German employers a nudge, to invoke the "trade secret" provision of employee inventor law, which is an excuse not to file. The puzzle then is, Mr Schade is saying "If the know-how is complex, then you can file". Meanwhile, the FT has prompted some fluttering in the dovecote of the thousands of private practice German patent attorneys who benefit from the German employee inventor law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55726647993805228472008-01-03T17:17:00.000+00:002008-01-03T17:17:00.000+00:00Re the Chinese v Germans Patents matter: in the fu...Re the Chinese v Germans Patents matter: in the full text of the German FT article (which I have only briefly summarised) Juergen Schade expects exactly that: Chinese companies will be exploiting the fruits of their own increasingly innovative efforts and will not need to copy. Schade also advises that more effort should be made to concentrate on keeping a technological advantage, ie investing more in inventing etc. (...or as one famous German carmaker might put it -the "Vorsprung durch Technik" idea)Birgit Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822674465997696890noreply@blogger.com