- From: David Leslie <dleslie@bcs.org.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:52:43 +0100
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I have just read about this isue, and understand that the deadline for public comment has been extended by a few days. I appreciate w3's efforts to explain the background and their proposals. It is a complex area, especially for a lay person like me, and I'm sure I don't appreciate all the nuances, but I'll try to explain my concerns. To my mind, the US Patent Office is now granting patents for trivial and obvious "inventions" in the software sector (eg your document's remarks on business method patents - suppose email had been patented as a business process - see for instance http://www.silicon.com/bin/bladerunner?30REQEVENT=&REQAUTH=21046&14001REQSUB =REQINT1=47887). I am concerned that participants in standard making processes will not only attempt to pull the standards in the direction of their existing patents, but that they will base their "patent strategy" (your term) on simple, intellectually obvious improvements or fine tuning to technology underlying embryonic standards. I have the impression that in many cases the resources going into securing patents significantly outweigh the intellectual effort of the "invention". I don't know if this is a situation beyond w3 control? Two suggestions that might ameliorate things: 1) exclude 'design' patents (although your FAQ defines patents, it doesn't seem to define design patents, even although it is a term you use) 2) strengthen the 'good faith' disclosure standards, and (if I understand the proposals correctly) considerably reduce the response time so that new patents trivially building on emerging standards can not be taken out. David Leslie
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 04:50:22 UTC