tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7706679665206414617..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: "Strategies to Improve Patenting and Enforcement"Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66007792672107204422008-06-03T09:47:00.000+01:002008-06-03T09:47:00.000+01:00Actually, that the EPO raised procedural fees to r...Actually, that the EPO raised procedural fees to reduce their reliance on renewal fees is perhaps a sign that they are keeping their ears to the ground.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if anything came of it, but I was intrigued by this 2003 report when I first saw it a couple of years back: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/studies/litigation_en.pdf<BR/><BR/>It's a study on litigation insurance which concludes that, for an insurance scheme to work, it would have to be compulsory (see page 54 or 49 depending on how you count)<BR/><BR/>15.2.2 Without a compulsory scheme the premiums would be high, the take-up low and most tellingly, insurers would not wish to be involved. Without a compulsory element any scheme would be likely to fail.<BR/><BR/>It may be possible that a propotion of all renewal fees could get sidelined into a compulsory insurance scheme, leaving less for the EPO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38001006639932792922008-06-02T19:15:00.000+01:002008-06-02T19:15:00.000+01:00So while some talk the need for an economic analys...<I>So while some talk the need for an economic analysis most shy away from the consequences and nearly all ignore the fact that if you have 2 economists in a room you tend to have at least three opinions.</I><BR/><BR/>That's because almost no economists have the theoretical tools needed to understand dynamics. Everything taught in school is based on static models of supply and demand. True enough, some economists are good at being able to visualize how elasticity and magnitude will change in time. But to reach consensus, some new mental models for market dynamics are going to be necessary. It's just more obvious in the IP and Antitrust areas of law because these are the ones in which short-term and long-term trends diverge so dramtically.Michael F. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15279501532684851571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7205071756007393442008-06-02T18:58:00.000+01:002008-06-02T18:58:00.000+01:00And at the same time we have the EPO purporting to...And at the same time we have the EPO purporting to use an economic analysis to justify an intention to raise procedural fees to reduce reliance on renewal fees on granted patents - little joined up thinking is happening. <BR/><BR/>Of course politically economics is embarrassing - how much would you pay for protection in Germany in comparison with Monaco?<BR/><BR/>So while some talk the need for an economic analysis most shy away from the consequences and nearly all ignore the fact that if you have 2 economists in a room you tend to have at least three opinions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22089838320035986052008-05-30T21:53:00.000+01:002008-05-30T21:53:00.000+01:00Attention IPKat, have a look at the item just post...Attention IPKat, have a look at the item just posted on the IPEG blog, about the OLG in Duesseldorf (district court on appeal - infringement jurisdiction, not validity) enjoining an infringer of a patent already found invalid by the German Federal Patents Court. Weird, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51994757405066277962008-05-29T18:23:00.000+01:002008-05-29T18:23:00.000+01:00In my interactions with patent lawyers, I have oft...In my interactions with patent lawyers, I have often asked what role economists play in their business. The answer is often either a very limited role or no role at all. One of the pillars of IP systems is the economic concept of encouraging innovation. Economics pervades all levels of IP and I would like to see economics taking on a larger role in the legal practice of IP. <BR/><BR/>Of course, as a postgraduate in Economics, I have an incentive to think this way!<BR/><BR/>In response to Marvin's comment regarding patent thickets inflating the cost of innovation: <BR/><BR/>The typical argument is that patent thickets cause innovators to devote time and resources to inventing around existing patents and/or negotiating multiple licensing agreements. These increased innovation costs impede innovation. <BR/><BR/>Cell phones and computers may demonstrate high innovation rates but this may occur at higher innovation costs than without patent thickets. The innovation rate might be higher if these costs were lowered. The retail price of these goods is not a reliable indicator of the innovation costs as it may reflect increases in demand (among other things.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30502995543518559662008-05-29T14:49:00.000+01:002008-05-29T14:49:00.000+01:00Thanks for providing this summary, IPKat!Cheaper p...Thanks for providing this summary, IPKat!<BR/><BR/>Cheaper patent litigation insurance would certainly be an improvement from the point of view of levelling the playing field for smaller companies. And getting more patent lawyers to talk with the actuaries pricing risk would help to price more accurately.Michael F. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15279501532684851571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46472498041657952542008-05-29T08:23:00.000+01:002008-05-29T08:23:00.000+01:00Just a couple of disparate points:1)As regards pat...Just a couple of disparate points:<BR/><BR/>1)As regards patent thickets 'inflating the costs of innovation', how strong is the evidence relating to this?<BR/><BR/>For example, in computer hardware there are vast numbers of patents out there, and yet every year far better computers are on the market at cheaper prices than the less-good computers were a year before. So innovation is increasing rapidly and retail price is falling rapidly. The same holds true for areas such as telecoms. Think of the original mobile phones and how little they could do and how expensive the tarifs were.<BR/><BR/>2) As regards renewal fees, I have long thought that the level of the fees should increase substantially over the 20 year term. Patentees should be incentivised, if not making money out of an invention, to let it fall back into the public domain.<BR/><BR/>In Germany, the level of renewal fees increases much more greatly over the patent life than in many other countries (such as uk).<BR/><BR/>3) I note from para 6 that the studies appear US based. Interesting, but would it not be better for Europeans to be studying European patents?<BR/><BR/>In this regard, renewal fees in the US are low and are only paid at (if memory serves) 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 yrs.<BR/><BR/>4) In response to Merpel's comment at the end: All large companies I have ever dealt with have a mechanism in place to re-evaluate their patents at 1, 2 or at most, 3 yr intervals. They do not blindly pay renewal fees. <BR/><BR/>Imagine you have 1000 patents in each of UK, DE, FR, IT, NL. You don't pay 500-2000 euro for each in each country every year unless you think there is value. This links back to the increased renewal fees. The higher the fees, the better the perceived return has to be to make it worthwhile to pay the fees.<BR/><BR/>As for, 'its not the tiddlers that do the trolling'. Quite often it is, isn't it? Would you call Aerotel a troll? What about a big telecoms player such as BT or Vodafone? Small guy suing a big company in the US (for patents or anything else) is common. Could you give examples of large tech companies engaging in 'trolling'?<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I hate the term 'troll', but I won't go into that now.. <BR/><BR/>MarvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com