Standard setting antitrust investigation dropped; Canada rejects business method patents

Rambus competition probe to be dropped

Forbes reports that Rambus and the European Commission have reached an agreement that will see the Commission dropping its antitrust probe into Rambus. The investigation has considered whether Rambus abused its dominant position by setting overly-high royalties for licensing DRAM patents that it was alleged were fraudulently set as industry standards. In return, Rambus will cap certain licence fees for 5 years and will ensure any fee cuts benefit the whole market. The agreement still needs the approval of other industry players.

Had this gone the whole way, the IPKat wouldn't have envied the Commission in trying to figure out what 'excessive royalties' are in this situation.

Canada rejects business method patents

Meanwhile, the Inquirer reports that the Canadian Patent Appeals Board has said a firm no to business method patents. Speaking in an appeal against a decision to refuse the registration of Amazon's One-Click method for buying goods online the Board said:

"since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."

The IPKat is no fan of providing patent protection for anything as fundamental as business methods and welcomes the decision.
Standard setting antitrust investigation dropped; Canada rejects business method patents Standard setting antitrust investigation dropped; Canada rejects business method patents Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, June 12, 2009 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Thank god they rejected the patents. How stupid is that was the person who actually thought that could go through? Patenting business methods, do people not have a bit of intelligence to realize the obvious?

    Take care, Elli


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.