www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-184) Apache should join in the Movement for Patent Clarity
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:56:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13813588#comment-13813588
] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-184:
-------------------------------------

Understood - personally I think it's a miss in terms of your request and the Apache entity's
interest in the request. ie) You'd like mobilization on a legal issue and Apache as an entity
has usually avoided getting involved in such endeavours. The above should be written as "I'd
like Apache to support _____", but we know the answer is probably 'not interested'. 

Wrt JIRA - the use case here is an off shoot of software planning and or bug management. It's
the todo-list for legal-discuss@. So items are expected to have a lifecycle and be closed.
Having issues open is, in general, a smell of not enough resource, or capability  to resolve
items.

I don't see anything in your text above that leads to a path of being closed, therefore I
assert it's not for JIRA. 

I could see it being for members@, though I'm not sure if "W3C reps" means Apache ones or
W3C reps that members may have access to via other channels. If it was only the former, then
the question would be why not an email to w3c-email-list@apache (not sure what the real address
is).

> Apache should join in the Movement for Patent Clarity
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-184
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-184
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Lawrence Rosen
>
> W3C PSIG is currently trying to identify ways in which to make patents less of a risk
for its web standards. Among the discussion items there are changes to the W3C Patent Policy
to require more precise information from members who are excluding their Essential Claims.

> I encourage Apache members to support this effort.
> Let me refer you below to a few references I found in Google on the topic of "patent
claim clarity". Many legal scholars and advocacy groups are recommending specific efforts,
particularly with software patents, to reduce disincentives of the patent system. Those efforts
have a common feature: They burden patent owners to cooperate more to clarify their patents.
> Below are some interesting quotations and links.
> To be fair, none of those articles proposes specifically that participants in standards
organizations cooperate to make their excluded patent claims clear and unambiguous. But doing
this in W3C would be a simple step towards the goal advocated in the articles cited below.
And it is something small we can do as cooperating W3C members to avoid our own patent risks.
> I will not be attending the next W3C PSIG meeting to make this argument, but I ask other
Apache members to speak up through their W3C reps if you can. 
> /Larry
> *********************
> EFF Files Comments with PTO on Patent Clarity.
> Vague patent claims, especially in software patents, are causing enormous harm. Lack
of adequate notice means innovators work in the shadow of unavoidable risk. And when creators
can’t adequately evaluate their risk, the patent system acts as a disincentive to innovation
and creation.
> Today, EFF filed comments with the U.S Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) regarding
proposals for improving patent clarity. We welcome the PTO’s efforts to make patent claims
easier to understand. We are particularly encouraged by the proposal to require applicants
to indicate which parts of the specification (this is the description of the invention) relate
to claim elements (the supposed boundaries of the patent). We think this will make it easier
to narrowly limit patents to what applicants actually invent and disclose.
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/eff-files-comments-pto-patent-clarity
> **************************
> Promoting Patent Claim Clarity 
> by Peter S. Menell, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
> Fuzzy patent claim boundaries undermine the functioning of the patent system by making
it difficult for inventors and competitors to assess freedom to operate in many technology
marketplaces, especially those relating to computer software and business methods. This commentary
advocates the use of a detailed, electronic, claim application form to address this problem.
By placing greater responsibility on patent applicants to delineate the precise boundaries
of their claims -- by, for example, specifically indicating whether they intend to invoke
the means-plus-function claim format by checking a box -- patent examiners could more easily
evaluate what is being claimed, competitors could more easily know contested intellectual
territory, and courts could more easily construe patent claims.
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171287
> *************************
> 2. Tightening Functional Claiming. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its
examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies
to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist
examiners in the software field.
> In my view, these two elements are sorely needed and will generally improve the patent
system without actually limiting the ability of patent assertion entities to derive value
from their innovations through patent assertion. In addition, the PTO will begin a number
of outreach mechanisms intended to provide assistance to non-patent-insiders who receive patent
demand letter.
> http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/06/patent-reform-2013.html
> **************************
> Inventions are often difficult to describe in words,1 and patents
> often contain technical information intertwined with legal meaning,2
> making patent claims more difficult to interpret than other legal documents.
> Despite complex interpretive rules, patent law has failed to
> accomplish one of its essential missions: allowing interested parties to
> understand a patent’s scope in a consistent and predictable manner.3
> The Failure of Public Notice in Patent Prosecution, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,
Volume 21, Number 1 Fall 2007



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message