Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:31:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12677293.1383521931000.3506.1429774299308@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12677293.1383521931000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12677293.1383521931000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12677293.1383521931686@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Closed] (LEGAL-184) Apache should join in the Movement for
 Patent Clarity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-184?page=3Dcom.atlassian=
.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Henri Yandell closed LEGAL-184.
-------------------------------
    Resolution: Unresolved

Resolving as there's been no activity here.

> 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 le=
ss of a risk for its web standards. Among the discussion items there are ch=
anges to the W3C Patent Policy to require more precise information from mem=
bers who are excluding their Essential Claims.=20
> 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 rec=
ommending specific efforts, particularly with software patents, to reduce d=
isincentives of the patent system. Those efforts have a common feature: The=
y 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 participant=
s in standards organizations cooperate to make their excluded patent claims=
 clear and unambiguous. But doing this in W3C would be a simple step toward=
s 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 ca=
n.=20
> /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 unavo=
idable risk. And when creators can=E2=80=99t 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) re=
garding proposals for improving patent clarity. We welcome the PTO=E2=80=99=
s efforts to make patent claims easier to understand. We are particularly e=
ncouraged by the proposal to require applicants to indicate which parts of =
the specification (this is the description of the invention) relate to clai=
m 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-clari=
ty
> **************************
> Promoting Patent Claim Clarity=20
> by Peter S. Menell, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
> Fuzzy patent claim boundaries undermine the functioning of the patent sys=
tem by making it difficult for inventors and competitors to assess freedom =
to operate in many technology marketplaces, especially those relating to co=
mputer 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 precis=
e boundaries of their claims -- by, for example, specifically indicating wh=
ether they intend to invoke the means-plus-function claim format by checkin=
g a box -- patent examiners could more easily evaluate what is being claime=
d, 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=3D2171287
> *************************
> 2. Tightening Functional Claiming. The PTO will provide new targeted trai=
ning to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the n=
ext 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 impro=
ve the patent system without actually limiting the ability of patent assert=
ion entities to derive value from their innovations through patent assertio=
n. In addition, the PTO will begin a number of outreach mechanisms intended=
 to provide assistance to non-patent-insiders who receive patent demand let=
ter.
> 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 documen=
ts.
> Despite complex interpretive rules, patent law has failed to
> accomplish one of its essential missions: allowing interested parties to
> understand a patent=E2=80=99s scope in a consistent and predictable manne=
r.3
> The Failure of Public Notice in Patent Prosecution, Harvard Journal of La=
w & Technology, Volume 21, Number 1 Fall 2007


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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