- Gene Quinn: USPTO Experiences Catastrophic Failure Of Electronic Patent And Trademark Systems
- Jacob Gershman: Bluebook Critics Incite Copyright Clash
- Bill Reid: The Ghost Of Christmas Patents
- Eriq Gardner: Grumpy Cat Brings Grumpy Lawsuit Over Infringement Of Intellectual Property
- Apple Signs Peace Deal With Ericsson
- Steve Brachmann: The Top 10 Patents Issued In 2015
Get a Job doing Patent Law
Here is another bite of bits, the “EFF Stupid Patent of the Month”
“For the first time ever, this month’s Stupid Patent of the Month is being awarded to a design patent. Microsoft recently sued Corel for, among other things, infringing its patent on a slider, D554,140, claiming that Corel Home Office has infringed Microsoft’s design.”
link to eff.org
When the EU set up its pan-European Registered Design Patent with a 25 year term, many voices were raised in concern, that the potency of the exclusive right was out of all proportion to the ease of acquiring such rights.
But I don’t think anybody imagined it could get so oit of proportion as it seems to be now, in the USA. Is this case an outrider of a Tsunami of litigation on design patents in the USA?
Is this…?
No.
Did you guys see this real life light saber?
link to youtube.com
And another, maybe better.
link to youtube.com
The story about Google fixing the PTO once makes one think that Google should simply replace the PTO for computer support.
I think the operative word being “fix” may not have the meaning that you intended here Ned….
😉
This power outage at the USPTO set me thinking, what if something similar were to happen at a Patent Office in an EPC 1973 country. EPC Rule 134 is here:
link to epo.org
It speaks of a “general dislocation” in mail services, but I think Rule 134(5) would allow the EPO President to certify anything necessary and then the EPO could accept the evidence of that self-certification, to extend any time limit as needed.
But I can see the difficulties for any such a self-certification system in a country like the USA.
Presumably the USD400 penalty fee for filing at the USPTO on paper is supposed to be used in measures to render the USPTO computer systems breakdown-proof? Meanwhile, I hope that a power outage at one EPO location would not be enough to crash the EPO at all of its physical locations (Munich The Hague, Berlin).
Good point there about multiple locations.
Perhaps that should get the PTO to thinking along the same lines.
Ned,
Criminy, how many years now have we had some presence outside of Washington….?
“Presumably the USD400 penalty fee for filing at the USPTO on paper is supposed to be used in measures to render the USPTO computer systems breakdown-proof? ”
Why in the world would you make such a presumption?
The story of Apple agreeing (after but a year of dispute) to pay substantial ongoing patent licence royalties to Ericsson is encouraging, for a reader in Europe. An example of the patent system working as it should? Even in telecoms. Bravo?
Indeed Max. Wiser heads seem to be in charge at Apple. First Samsung, now Erickson.
The phone wars started because of a reluctance to cross license. The result was predictable: The lawyers win.
Comments are closed.