tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7124671832081576374..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Microsoft and HTC make love, not mobile warVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16020843066785618212010-04-30T20:10:21.202+01:002010-04-30T20:10:21.202+01:00Yeah, they make love as a secretary would make lov...Yeah, they make love as a secretary would make love with his boss for not being fired...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10682558629125945502010-04-30T20:03:15.428+01:002010-04-30T20:03:15.428+01:00When I draft claims I write them as simple and bro...When I draft claims I write them as simple and broad in scope as possible; not in a belief that it will catch all technological progress later but rather to prevent others working around the patent by trivial modifications. This should be good for innovation since the applicant should be well protected by a patent that allows him to make money from his invention.<br /><br />I have experienced cases where competitors review the patents carfully to see how they can work around the claims, or, failing that, mask the infringement hoping not to be caught. For farmaceutical patents you should always expect the competition to put their best people on the case to see how to work around the patent you drafted the application for.<br /><br /><br />While vague or wide scoped description is often useful, vague claims do not fare well in the EPO.<br /><br />Perhaps claims constructions vary more than I thought but I had the impression that claims construction is based on what the person skilled in the art would understand at the priority date, not in the present with perhaps 10 years of hindsight to lean on.<br /><br />There are some cultural aspects here too as I have notices applications from certain countries have very narrow independent claims where claim 1 can fill an entire page. Prosecution history in EPO is typically rather quick and painless for such cases but I am not sure the applicant is well served with such narrow scopes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80793924854612891652010-04-29T15:01:42.569+01:002010-04-29T15:01:42.569+01:00The whole software patent thing seems to thrive on...The whole software patent thing seems to thrive on uncertainty and the high cost of defending an infringement claim.<br /><br />Even the IPKats don't seem to be able to pick their way though this.<br /><br />I am at a loss to understand why this is good for innovation and understand entirely why it's good for lawyers. <br /><br />Thoughout the innovation value chain there will be a siren legal voice encouraging the innovator to support the lifestyle of lawyers and at the end of it all, might still not have the wherewithal to fund litigation (time, money resources, opportunity cost)<br /><br />Anecdotally I understand that the insurance industry would pursue a point of law to legal certainty on a cheap case, to provide certainty on expensive futures.<br /><br />This pursuit of certainty appears to be impossible in intellectual property matters, as the whole industry is geared towards promoting uncertainty. "Let us draft your claim in as broad terms as possible so as to prevade things you hadn't even dreamt of - it costs $4 million basic to defend against your claims, so they'll just give in". I recall a presentation from the soi-disant UKIPO implicitly promoting just that. The new EU patent "roll back" from over-claiming then provides an insurance policy. (What's wrong with "tough luck" to discourage the buccaneers?)<br /><br />Perhaps one of the Kats (or beagles) here could address this apparent systemic aberration?Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12868102010052367702010-04-29T14:11:37.147+01:002010-04-29T14:11:37.147+01:00You may think this is making love, but it is all p...You may think this is making love, but it is all part of MS's greater war on linux. They have made numerous (intentionally) vague claims of IP infringment in the linux kernel (as used by Android) over the years and have used these to try and scare people into buying licenses from them. HTC are a large manufacturer of WinMo phones and don't have much of a patent portfolio themselves, and so are quite susceptible to pressure from MS. This is a win-win for MS: if HTC make a WinMo phone, they get paid, if they make an Android phone, they get royalties. <br />Whether MS will go after Motorola (who have quite a healthy portfolio of patents pertaining to mobile technology which they could, potentially use against MS) for a license remains to be seen.<br /><br />*fumes* bloody sfotware patents...Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09783101279590846086noreply@blogger.com