Digital Copyright Canada

Yesterday's blog by Michael Geist comments an article in Embassy Magazine about the recent PPF symposium, and the various government ministers and opposition critics comments on the copyright legislative process.

The article also touches upon patent law and paraphrases Michel Gerin of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, as saying we need to "promote awareness and clear up confusion among small and medium-sized businesses about the importance of intellectual property, especially around trademarks and patents. He said that without such protection, it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to attract investors."

There seems to be more and more recognition of the idea that more and more patents aren't necessarily a good thing. This blog post points to a paper (PDF) that tries to quantify the costs of bad patents.

An International Herald Tribune article by Donald G. McNeil Jr. discusses one of the ongoing controversies about the Gates foundation. The very proprietary nature that Gates brought to the software industry is being repeated in other areas.

An article by Martin LaMonica, Staff Writer for CNET News.com documents an Eco-Patent Commons launched by IBM. Is this IBM trying to green their image and the declining image of the patent system itself? Is this like their contributions of patents to FLOSS projects has done for their image in the FLOSS community? We still need to ask why various IBM lawyers promote patentability in subject matter areas where we would be better off having no patents at all, such as information/mental processes.

With Apple and IBM acting as fanboys of the current US patent system, Google provided a more sane viewpoint at the annual Stanford Summit in Northern California according to a Register article by Cade Metz.

Canadians should remember that in Canada it was IBM's patent lawyers, not Microsoft, that has been leading the charge to increase patentability to include things such as information/mental processes (software, business methods, etc).

A PUBPAT press release for July 24, 2007 talks about a recent USPTO rejection of Monsanto patent claims. PUBPAT has been doing a great job in helping ensure the courts, policy makers, and the general public understand that there is a public benefit to the rejection of patents and the reduction of patentability.

The New York Times reports on a study analysing data from 1976 to 1999 comparing the costs of patent litigation to the profits generated by patents. The conclusion of the study is that patents are worthwhile for the pharmaceutical industry but that's about it.

“Today, over all, patents don’t work; for the information technology industry especially, they don’t work,”

Note that they're not saying that companies shouldn't apply for patents, but that the total cost to the industry outweighs the total benefits, and so patent reform of some kind is needed.

An article by Anne Broache, Staff Writer, CNET News.com, discusses some bills in the USA that aim to reduce the massive failures in the US patent system.

Improvements: First to file to match international patent community, creation of a "post-grant opposition" board to more cheaply weed out poor quality patents, restrict acceptable venues for filing patent suits, and reducing remedies able to be claimed against "infringers".

KEY HIV/AIDS DRUG PATENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY U.S. PATENT OFFICE: Prior Art Submitted by PUBPAT Raises Substantial Doubt Regarding Validity of Gilead Sciences Claims

New York, NY -- July 18, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") announced today that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted each of PUBPAT's requests to review four key HIV/AIDS drug patents held by Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD). The patents relate to the drug known generically as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a key weapon in the battle against HIV/AIDS. Gilead markets TDF in the United States under the brand name VIREAD and as a part of its ATRIPLA combination product.

In an article by Briony Smith for IT World Canada, John Reid, president of the CATA Alliance, is quoted with regards to a recent court ruling requiring additional data to confirm patentability.

Mr. Reid said, "This does affect all of the advanced technology sector, when it comes to patent protection—it affects any product that requires patent protection, which is everything". (See also: CATA press release)

I have not read the case yet, but from the article alone I must disagree with Mr. Reid.