![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The web site page I added describes a FREE claim chart generator. There is no fee, cost, charge or other exchange of value for use of the claim chart generator. If this is still unacceptable, please explain to me what has to be done to make it acceptable by emailing me at rich@englishlogickernel.com - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishLogicKernel ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The expression "... used in countries such as the United States to ..." is not clear and precise enough. In such statements, one has to either give a category/feature that characterizes the class referred to, and supply example(s), for example "in FEDERAL countries such as the United ...", or give enough examples s.t. the reader can understand what category it is about, e.g. "in countries such as the United States, Germany, Austria, Spain". If the mentioned entities (the United States in our case) do not fit in any particular category, the formulation should simply use an enumeration: In the United States, ..., the additional qualification utility patents is used ..." My examples where just given to make it clear what i mean. Somebody with enough knowledge in Patents, please correct the formulation, with one that transmits the correct information. Thanks! SiSoie ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, Hello the second link (British Library) is dead...It gives 404 not found error. http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/polinks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.153.207 ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Some patentholders are unlucky if their patent cannot be exploited before expiry due to depression or war. This happened to early television patents.
On the other hand, Boulton and Watt arranged, in 1775, an act of parliament extending the term of Watt's 1769 steam engine patent to 1799.
Tabletop ( talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss any reorganization of the article's structure on the talk page first. The order of sections in this stable version [2] appears IMHO to fit with the average reader's needs, i.e. first understanding what is a patent and its effects, then understanding the governing laws, the economic rationale and finally the history. And please also add edit summaries. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 07:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:
PS with this content, we should be able to create a dedicated page for "biotech patents", which would be coool
PPS one more http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Stem_Cell_Research_and_Patents:_An_Introduction_to_the_Issues%2C_September_10%2C_2001
PPS actually there are dozens of free research reports on "patents" at the CRS page, I'd like to invite someone to please extract the hyperlinks and put them on this discussion page. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date
Oh, that's awesome. Could I ask another favor -- we just created a template to serve this purpose (I'm pretty proud) and now I'm going through about 100 pages to transfer my links into it. Would you mind implementing the template for the pages you just referenced. Here's an example of the template ({{refideas}}) for this page. It's got some nuanced documentation (multiple sources, public vs. nonpublic domain)
![]() Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
The article states that until 2008 European patents costed on average 32,000 euros. How much they cost now? Ben T/ C 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the history section for this page should immediately proceed the etymology. It seems inappropriately placed at the end of the article. Comments? Wiki emma johnson ( talk) 05:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very Rusty, Thank you for commenting! With regards to your observation, are you suggesting that the original purpose of British patents be added to the History section? With references, I think it would be very appropriate to include within this article. Wiki emma johnson ( talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I came to read this page because I'd come across a discussion as to what sort of ideas should or shouldn't be granted a patent. Given that people have always expressed discontent when there are legal restrictions on using ideas, and given that more than one English-speaking country is considering changes to what things should be patentable, I would guess that other people would come to this page for similar reasons too. I see that the page lists the benefits of granting a patent, but doesn't have much information on the corresponding costs to society.
As a starting point, I thought I'd look up what the legal costs associated with patents are. It is, however, just a brief note, and not very thoroughly researched (as my wife was hurrying me to leave the computer): I used a google search for ‘"legal costs" patents’, and consulted just the first relevant-looking entry, namely the Bessen & Meurer book I cited. Edcolins has since marked that citation as ‘vague’; is that because I gave a chapter rather than a page number, or is it marked vague because it's unclear what information that work supplies? The reason for giving a chapter is that the chapter title is ‘The Costs of Disputes’, and gives various other costs associated with patent disputes, which are also relevant to this section.
I agree that the AIPLA reference is vague both in where the information comes from and what costs are represented. For discussion purposes, I transcribe here the relevant section that gives more detail about the costs and how the figures were obtained. Obviously be careful to avoid infringing copyright (expressive/creative elements as distinct from facts) if copying any of this to the main page, though I believe my transcribing it here counts as fair dealing / fair use.
Cost through Discovery (millions, $U.S. 1992) | Cost through Trial (millions, $U.S. 1992) | |
---|---|---|
Amount at Stake | ||
Less than $1 million | $0.35 | $0.61 |
$1–$25 million | $1.20 | $2.10 |
More than $25 million | $2.59 | $4.14 |
Summary Judgment (millions, $U.S. 1992) | Trial (millions, $U.S. 1992) | |
---|---|---|
Patentee | $1.10 | $1.20 |
Alleged infringer | $0.66 | $2.85 |
(Note that these are in 1992 dollars, so multiply by about two as a first approximation for current numbers.)
Given the title of the book, it would be good to check with another source; though it is in line with what I've heard from other sources, and matches the (unsourced) claims in the Patent infringement page (“A typical patent infringement case in the US costs 1 – 3 million dollars in legal fees for each side.”).
In the main article, I've summarized all of the above in the single phrase “on average in the order of a million [US] dollars”: I believe that such an approximation is good enough for at least the purposes I had in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
@ User:GDallimore Probably you should read SCP/14/7 and you find that Brazil criticises that patents are out of balance.
Page 4 #6: “The focus of the current IP system, however, heavily lies on ensuring rights to the IP title holders. Their claims are, undoubtedly legitimate, but certainly incomplete from the perspective of the public policy.”
Page 4 #7: “Director-General Francis Gurry ... has asked “What does a Member State get out of being part of this Organization?”. The question remains unanswered unless changes occur. A judicious balance of rights and obligations would be a good start in that direction, so as to help society as a whole to understand, accept and thus fully support an improved IP system; and exceptions and limitations to patent rights are fundamental elements to reach this equilibrium.”
Page 4 #8: “The naïve assumption that providing IP title holders with stronger rights will, by itself, foster innovation or attract investments is no longer acceptable. The open and global economy has rejected this assumption and severely hit the very essence of the patent system, whereby a country would confer an artificial and temporary “monopoly” for the inventor in exchange of having the invention revealed allegedly benefiting the society. No such thing is currently taking place, with a few countries excepted.”
Page 4 #9: “the key issue is about revising old assumptions and starting to recover the essentials of the patent system.”
Page 6 #20: “We are now facing a moral deadlock. Developed countries seem to be the only ones capable of reaping any advantage from the system, as very little guidance is provided in order to satisfy the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement, whereby “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations”.”
Which one shall we take as critisism and where shall we put the “common sense statement”?
-- Swen ( talk) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
GDallimore removed subject matter added to the section headed 'criticism' on the ground that "This is not a criticism but a common sense statement that the patent system must be balanced" (quoting edit summary). That seems a poor ground for removal of subject-matter. Firstly, 'criticism' as a category is clearly broader than 'negative criticism'. The removed statement was clearly criticism in the broader sense, whether or not a negative criticism was diplomatically implied. Secondly, the sources show that critical evaluation has been a constant accompaniment of the patent system and patent practice, ever since the start of the modern continuous legal tradition. Significant evaluative statements by participants in current international developments clearly deserve to be represented, subject to WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:WEIGHT. I would accordingly support Swen's viewpoint that the material desrves inclusion. Terry0051 ( talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for completeness the deleted paragraph:
Brazil proposed 2010 in the WIPO standing committee on the law of patents: “The patent system must strive for the equilibrium of rights among its users, which should, accordingly, not only comprise IP title holders, but also the society as a whole, so that the welfare of the society as a whole prevails. They all constitute legitimate “clients” of the system.”
-- Swen ( talk) 12:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this study should be mentioned in the article [3] -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the government, e.g. the military, will intervene in a patent application process and secretize the patent, probably for reasons of national interest. I am watching an interview (time 25:30) with famous patent officer Tom Valone [4] where he states that in the U.S. 4,000 patents have suffered this. Do we have some information on this in any of the patent-related articles? __ meco ( talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of completing a book on Soviet and Russian secret patents. I also refer to US and British patent secrecy. I have little information on other countries' practices. Some Wiki articles refer to secret French patents, but evidently the law and procedures are secret. Same for Germany. Later, when I have more time, I could take a stab at a section on this topic.-- JMartens ( talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. (a Dutch patent attorney agency) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it true that patenting is only useful when the patent holder has the financial capability to able to pay for defending their patent in court? Without the financial backing to support an infringement case, it appears that a patent holder's rights apparently can be violated at will by others without regard.
I have several ideas that are probably unique and patentable, but I personally am not a wealthy person. I personally don't have the technical skill or facilities to fully develop these into actual products or services, nor am I involved with companies that could carry them out to completion. As such I feel that I likely can not benefit financially from these ideas even if I did get a patent on them.
If these ideas can benefit the common good, then apparently open discussion and publishing without patenting them would ensure that multiple others will be able to develop the concepts, and yet none will be able to claim it as their own to the exclusion of others (or me), since my publishing will be available on the Internet and elsewhere as "prior art".
DMahalko ( talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of recent edits (sorry, but linking is not my strong point) have removed a couple of sections from criticism, namely the difficulty of fully searching prior art, and the humanitarian aspects of drug patents. The section on patent trolls has also changed. I would like to see the humanitarian aspects reinstated or incorporated into the existing paragraph that touches on it.
I would like to see the section on patent trolls expanded, and to cover the concept of the defensive patent, and fundamental technology patents, and the level of risk these pose on new entrants, particular in the tech sector. Any thoughts VeryRusty ( talk) 12:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The following is a proposed addition to the article summary. It has been criticized for failing to summarize content in the body of the article and for not having references.
Please provide supporting references and discuss where to best place the content.-- Nowa ( talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
¾-10 I think you will find that addressing the citation needed tags first will be effective at resolving many of the the clarification and dubious tags. As an encyclopedia, our mission to to summarize what other authoritative sources have presented.-- Nowa ( talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be useful, perhaps under the 'Criticism' section to discuss the cost & complexity of inventors having to patent in each jurisdiction (country) in which they wish to have protection, and the unaffordability of that to most private inventors. Currently there is no mention of the attempts to remedy this by having international patents, or Europe-wide patents. Although these attempts have failed to date, I think it would be useful if a paragraph about this issue were included. FreeFlow99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeFlow99 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
"The 1970 Indian Patent Act allowed the Indian pharmaceutical industry to develop local technological capabilities in this industry. This act transformed India from a bulk importer of pharmaceutical drugs to a leading exporter. The rapid evolution of Indian pharmaceutical industry since the mid-1970s highlights the fact that the design of the patent act was instrumental in building local capabilities even in a poor country like India.[37]"
It seems very odd to give this as a rationale supporting patent law when this law meant that drugs could not be patented but production methods could. This was a weakening of the international drugs companies control of India's drugs by patents. Indian pharmaceutical industry flourished because they could make drugs that were previously patent encumbered simply by developing a new production method. QuentinUK ( talk) 22:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that once a person takes a patent in any country, a patent for a same invention can not be taken by anyone else in another country. This as every patent has to be taken on a "new" idea, and so it isn't possible for anyone else to steal an idea and patent it in a country where the same idea has not yet been patented.
I think this is quite important information and should be noted here. 81.242.230.241 ( talk) 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This sentence
requires a reliable source. The provided source does not really help. I have removed the sentence for now. In my opinion, the EPC or PCT exist mainly for procedural simplification rather than "Because novelty is a requirement for patentability in each jurisdiction's patent law" or "to ensure that obtaining patent rights in one country does not interfere with obtaining patent rights in other countries". If patent applications are filed nationally in each of a number of countries, even if no priority is claimed under the Paris Convention and even if the patent applications are not filed all exactly on the same day, there will be no "interference" between obtaining patent rights in these different countries. Patent applications are generally published 18 months after filing. -- Edcolins ( talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to weigh in on whether this article and the Societal views on patents articles should be merged, then here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Societal views on patents. GDallimore ( Talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been in discussions with Chaser ( talk · contribs) about the best policy for linking to patent reference pages. I've been using IP.com lately and I recommend it (it's free, of course, or I wouldn't even mention it, with very powerful search syntax) -- I've linked to some of their patent pages using both Reference citations and, when there has been no exact match for a citation, in External Links, but some of those External Links have been deleted by other editors. Chaser suggested I post here to get feedback on this issue. My (revised) thought is that appropriateness should be determined on a case-by-case basis, so perhaps the proposed External Link should first be added to the Talk page for a given article to get clearance from other editors before adding it as an external link. Any thoughts? — Snarkosis ( talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the usefulness of the search query links, I consider it potentially quite useful when it is a highly focused search query that matches closely to, say, a specific technology that is the subject of a given Wikipedia article. Why wouldn't corresponding relevant patents be useful "additional information" for a given topic? I'm not saying in every case, but certainly in some cases, and therefore not "completely and utterly useless". That's my considered opinion anyway, but if the consensus is that it's always useless, then so be it, I won't bother with such links.
I concede your point about the ads, and perhaps my preference has been based too much on the layout and usability advantage that I think the IP.com pages have. In other words, I think the process of using IP.com is better than the process of using USPTO or espacenet, with better search and more features, but perhaps just looking directly at a single static page others might prefer a different site's patent dislpay. Personally, I think IP.com's layout and usability is superior, as can be seen in these 3 versions of the same patent page, from each service:
Again, this is my opinion, and I'll go along with the consensus on this -- if all patent links must be to USPTO or espacenet, even though currently editors post links to dozens of different patent sources, I can live with that, though I'll likely post fewer patents, as I prefer to use IP.com from a process point of view. Not a big deal. — Snarkosis ( talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
IP.com, although presenting patent text more clearly, appears to omit the drawings, presumably due to copyright. In my opinion drawings are often essential for understanding a patent. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 21:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi All
A new user, Mavady, wanted to add the following link to the article https://www.ipsmartup.com/learn. I reverted the addition, on the grounds that this looks a lot like link spam, and there are other sites that explain what a patent is in plain language. I asked Mavady what was up with this, and Mavady said "I actually found this content more helpful than the other references. This was really well written and even my kids got a good understanding from it. I am sorry if it appeared to be spam but I just wanted to add some simplicity to this complex subject." To be honest, I agree with Mavady that the explanation on that page is exceptionally clear. I went hunting for something good - really aimed at the public, and found some links. But to frank, I found nothing that is as clear, in my eyes. I objected to this link because of the way the page is constructed -- the top of the page is an FAQ for IPsmartup's services - the very clear information is in the middle of the page under Patent FAQs. The way the page is constructed, once cannot link directly to the clear information. Somebody who follows the link looks first at the the thing at the top of the page - basically an ad for the company. This makes it too link-spammy to me. But since this is one against one, it seemed reasonable to take this to talk. What do you all think? Jytdog ( talk) 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you rewrite the spam page with equally clear prose and reference the Patent Office web site. Greensburger ( talk) 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the nomination for deletion, as what I think is appropriate is a merger.
I propose that Societal views on patents be merged into Patent. Most of the content of Societal views on patents violates WP:OR or WP:SYN and the criticism content blends very easily into this article. The resulting article is not too long nor does it create undue weight -- it has about 5000 words, and as per WP:SIZE this is even under the recommended length of 6,000 to 10,000 words. I actually did the merger and it was reverted - you can see how the resulting article would look [ here]. Jytdog ( talk) 03:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the consensus, I have removed the tags proposing a merger. LT90001 ( talk) 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This material was recently added:
The article makes an interesting point, but I think before we include this material, we should find several more corroborating references.-- Nowa ( talk) 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this section to talk pending further vetting.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the references per se, but I don't know of any other instance where a respected scholar makes the point that a country's strong patent system can be used by another country as a weapon against them. This appears to be the thesis of the Pearce article. Regarding the Wall St. Journal article, that is behind a paywall and to be candid, I am not willing to pay $400 to take a look. I would nonetheless respect another editor's summary of the contents, particularly as it relates to the Pearce article.-- Nowa ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In the past, a similar national strategy was used to hobble the French colorant industry and Germany crushed the U.S. chemical industry prior to WWI using such a patent strategy. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Free text http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf
I reverted the deletions of all the edits to an algorithmic approach to avoiding patents -- I apologize for referring to Chin's work with superlatives adjectives - I have removed them and the hyperlink to him as it appears there is not a page about him. I m not affiliated with him in any way, but I do think this new type of approach is important for this article. -- Reginll ( talk) 02:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
References
My question is - who cares what these people think? Wikipedia would godzuple in size if we cite every paper published that criticized the patent system somehow. Generally we use secondary sources - reviews of issues - rather than primary sources like this one - for exactly this reason.
The primary economic theories supporting patent law hold that inventors and innovators need patents to recoup the costs associated with research, inventing, and commercializing; but this reasoning is weakened if the new technologies decrease these costs. [1] A 2016 paper argued for substantial weakening of patents because current technologies (e.g. 3-D printing, cloud computing, synthetic biology, etc.) have reduced the cost of innovation. [1]
References
I'll add that the argument is completely irrelevant to say, drugs, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and ten years or so to develop, and no 3D printer or internet of things is going to change that. but whatever Jytdog ( talk) 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context
Jytdog: I was just about to start into some major editing and I looked back at the article log to see if you had moved the benefit text out and fixed your mis-representation of Boldrin - but realized you not only didnt do that but had just cut another peer reviewed source from the criticism section and weakened the section even more. The Barnett article you cut reviewed over 70 articles that looked at the trivial nature of IP and has been cited 43 times according to Google Scholar. This appears to be a reliable source - exactly the kind I was about to add a lot more of -- would you please explain your reasoning for weakening the patent criticism section in detail. -- Trumpms ( talk) 11:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog: So I just went through the edit log of this page and the Societal views on patents page - and found that your editing is almost always reducing (e.g. removing content particularly that is critical of patents). I have no doubt that you are an editor of good will - but I noticed in your COI disclosure [6] that you "work for a startup company developing drugs for acute neurological disorders..." You appear to be technically sophisticated - so I would suspect that you personally or at the very least your employer is heavily invested in the patenting process, which appears to be a COI of your continued editing of these types of articles. I recommend that you do another "Self-initiated COI Investigation" - but from my skimming of your edits I think the bias is clear. That said - I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what to do about COI. I think you should continue to actively edit this page - and put the best possible cited arguments for the continued use of the patent system - but put it in Patent#Rationale (or even change that section title to "Patent Benefits". In addition, however, I request that you stop deleting criticisms supported by peer-reviewed articles. I think with both those actions we can make a really strong wikipedia article. -- Trumpms ( talk) 11:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog was unable to provide any reasoned argument showing that he/she was not actively weakening the patent criticism section on my talk page or hat he.she did not have a COI. I have asked him/her to stop deleting content from that section and to have other wikipedians do it and instead be constructive and work on substantiating the benefit section. I plan to beef up the criticism section that is really weak at this point first - and then I will beef up the benefit section that at least has some of the main content but it missing many references. I will only make statements that can be backed up with a peer-reviewed study in an archival well-respected journal. I would ask that other wikipedians carefully monitor and undo any vandalism or inappropriate editing by either myself or Jytdog. Thank you - Trumpms ( talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've move the following material from the Criticism section to here for further vetting. It's not clear if the referenced book is notable, although the authors certainly are. If the book is notable, I recommend an article be written about it first, before we summarize it here, or someone finds a reference that summarizes the content of the book.
Other web evidence -- there are 6 pages of google search in News for "Against intellectual monopoly":
It appears clear that the impact of this book is much more concentrated in academia and law journals (very notable) and although covered in the popular press to some extent (marginally notable) it appears largely marginalized by the mainstream media, which of course has a strong COI to maintain current IP rules (the book also covers copy right) -- so I am not sure how to deal with it in Wikipedia.
I am now going to turn my attention to beefing up the benefits of patents section. -- Trumpms ( talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following from the benefits section:
Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies don't invest in making the invention a product. [1] failed verification
References
I tried to find a citation for this and could not. All the first hits on Google for "wont innovate without patent" are anti-patent references. In looking for it I found the opposite in a post by the CEO of an open source electronics company about "IP Obesity" [8]. Obviously not all companies share this sentiment of "If your idea is unique, easily copied, and can be sold for profit in a local market, it will be." So I think the sentence should be changed to:
Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, some companies may not invest in making the invention a product.
Although we still need at least one ref for it - Trumpms ( talk) 14:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Trumpms ( talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the word "detailed". The statute only requires the disclosure to be sufficient for the "person skilled in the art", and patentees have an interest in disclosing as little as possible. Rbakels ( talk) 08:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to improve the article by adding te word "detailed" to disclosure, but it was removed.
Should I have used the (American) legal term "enabling"? Article 83 of the European Patent Convention says "Disclosure of the invention. The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art."
Just the word "disclosure" could be understood as just a requirement for the inventor to tell that he made the invention. The above provision shows that it is more than that. Rbakels ( talk) 11:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Using 2018 data derived from AIPLA Economic Survey [1], the average cost of a US patent application is between $30,000 and $60,000.
Explanation of issue: The current information on the page is from 2000 and excludes some of the costs of a patent.
References supporting change: [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Russkrajec ( talk) 12:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The web site page I added describes a FREE claim chart generator. There is no fee, cost, charge or other exchange of value for use of the claim chart generator. If this is still unacceptable, please explain to me what has to be done to make it acceptable by emailing me at rich@englishlogickernel.com - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishLogicKernel ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The expression "... used in countries such as the United States to ..." is not clear and precise enough. In such statements, one has to either give a category/feature that characterizes the class referred to, and supply example(s), for example "in FEDERAL countries such as the United ...", or give enough examples s.t. the reader can understand what category it is about, e.g. "in countries such as the United States, Germany, Austria, Spain". If the mentioned entities (the United States in our case) do not fit in any particular category, the formulation should simply use an enumeration: In the United States, ..., the additional qualification utility patents is used ..." My examples where just given to make it clear what i mean. Somebody with enough knowledge in Patents, please correct the formulation, with one that transmits the correct information. Thanks! SiSoie ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, Hello the second link (British Library) is dead...It gives 404 not found error. http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/polinks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.153.207 ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Some patentholders are unlucky if their patent cannot be exploited before expiry due to depression or war. This happened to early television patents.
On the other hand, Boulton and Watt arranged, in 1775, an act of parliament extending the term of Watt's 1769 steam engine patent to 1799.
Tabletop ( talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss any reorganization of the article's structure on the talk page first. The order of sections in this stable version [2] appears IMHO to fit with the average reader's needs, i.e. first understanding what is a patent and its effects, then understanding the governing laws, the economic rationale and finally the history. And please also add edit summaries. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 07:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:
PS with this content, we should be able to create a dedicated page for "biotech patents", which would be coool
PPS one more http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Stem_Cell_Research_and_Patents:_An_Introduction_to_the_Issues%2C_September_10%2C_2001
PPS actually there are dozens of free research reports on "patents" at the CRS page, I'd like to invite someone to please extract the hyperlinks and put them on this discussion page. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date
Oh, that's awesome. Could I ask another favor -- we just created a template to serve this purpose (I'm pretty proud) and now I'm going through about 100 pages to transfer my links into it. Would you mind implementing the template for the pages you just referenced. Here's an example of the template ({{refideas}}) for this page. It's got some nuanced documentation (multiple sources, public vs. nonpublic domain)
![]() Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
The article states that until 2008 European patents costed on average 32,000 euros. How much they cost now? Ben T/ C 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the history section for this page should immediately proceed the etymology. It seems inappropriately placed at the end of the article. Comments? Wiki emma johnson ( talk) 05:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very Rusty, Thank you for commenting! With regards to your observation, are you suggesting that the original purpose of British patents be added to the History section? With references, I think it would be very appropriate to include within this article. Wiki emma johnson ( talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I came to read this page because I'd come across a discussion as to what sort of ideas should or shouldn't be granted a patent. Given that people have always expressed discontent when there are legal restrictions on using ideas, and given that more than one English-speaking country is considering changes to what things should be patentable, I would guess that other people would come to this page for similar reasons too. I see that the page lists the benefits of granting a patent, but doesn't have much information on the corresponding costs to society.
As a starting point, I thought I'd look up what the legal costs associated with patents are. It is, however, just a brief note, and not very thoroughly researched (as my wife was hurrying me to leave the computer): I used a google search for ‘"legal costs" patents’, and consulted just the first relevant-looking entry, namely the Bessen & Meurer book I cited. Edcolins has since marked that citation as ‘vague’; is that because I gave a chapter rather than a page number, or is it marked vague because it's unclear what information that work supplies? The reason for giving a chapter is that the chapter title is ‘The Costs of Disputes’, and gives various other costs associated with patent disputes, which are also relevant to this section.
I agree that the AIPLA reference is vague both in where the information comes from and what costs are represented. For discussion purposes, I transcribe here the relevant section that gives more detail about the costs and how the figures were obtained. Obviously be careful to avoid infringing copyright (expressive/creative elements as distinct from facts) if copying any of this to the main page, though I believe my transcribing it here counts as fair dealing / fair use.
Cost through Discovery (millions, $U.S. 1992) | Cost through Trial (millions, $U.S. 1992) | |
---|---|---|
Amount at Stake | ||
Less than $1 million | $0.35 | $0.61 |
$1–$25 million | $1.20 | $2.10 |
More than $25 million | $2.59 | $4.14 |
Summary Judgment (millions, $U.S. 1992) | Trial (millions, $U.S. 1992) | |
---|---|---|
Patentee | $1.10 | $1.20 |
Alleged infringer | $0.66 | $2.85 |
(Note that these are in 1992 dollars, so multiply by about two as a first approximation for current numbers.)
Given the title of the book, it would be good to check with another source; though it is in line with what I've heard from other sources, and matches the (unsourced) claims in the Patent infringement page (“A typical patent infringement case in the US costs 1 – 3 million dollars in legal fees for each side.”).
In the main article, I've summarized all of the above in the single phrase “on average in the order of a million [US] dollars”: I believe that such an approximation is good enough for at least the purposes I had in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
@ User:GDallimore Probably you should read SCP/14/7 and you find that Brazil criticises that patents are out of balance.
Page 4 #6: “The focus of the current IP system, however, heavily lies on ensuring rights to the IP title holders. Their claims are, undoubtedly legitimate, but certainly incomplete from the perspective of the public policy.”
Page 4 #7: “Director-General Francis Gurry ... has asked “What does a Member State get out of being part of this Organization?”. The question remains unanswered unless changes occur. A judicious balance of rights and obligations would be a good start in that direction, so as to help society as a whole to understand, accept and thus fully support an improved IP system; and exceptions and limitations to patent rights are fundamental elements to reach this equilibrium.”
Page 4 #8: “The naïve assumption that providing IP title holders with stronger rights will, by itself, foster innovation or attract investments is no longer acceptable. The open and global economy has rejected this assumption and severely hit the very essence of the patent system, whereby a country would confer an artificial and temporary “monopoly” for the inventor in exchange of having the invention revealed allegedly benefiting the society. No such thing is currently taking place, with a few countries excepted.”
Page 4 #9: “the key issue is about revising old assumptions and starting to recover the essentials of the patent system.”
Page 6 #20: “We are now facing a moral deadlock. Developed countries seem to be the only ones capable of reaping any advantage from the system, as very little guidance is provided in order to satisfy the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement, whereby “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations”.”
Which one shall we take as critisism and where shall we put the “common sense statement”?
-- Swen ( talk) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
GDallimore removed subject matter added to the section headed 'criticism' on the ground that "This is not a criticism but a common sense statement that the patent system must be balanced" (quoting edit summary). That seems a poor ground for removal of subject-matter. Firstly, 'criticism' as a category is clearly broader than 'negative criticism'. The removed statement was clearly criticism in the broader sense, whether or not a negative criticism was diplomatically implied. Secondly, the sources show that critical evaluation has been a constant accompaniment of the patent system and patent practice, ever since the start of the modern continuous legal tradition. Significant evaluative statements by participants in current international developments clearly deserve to be represented, subject to WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:WEIGHT. I would accordingly support Swen's viewpoint that the material desrves inclusion. Terry0051 ( talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for completeness the deleted paragraph:
Brazil proposed 2010 in the WIPO standing committee on the law of patents: “The patent system must strive for the equilibrium of rights among its users, which should, accordingly, not only comprise IP title holders, but also the society as a whole, so that the welfare of the society as a whole prevails. They all constitute legitimate “clients” of the system.”
-- Swen ( talk) 12:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this study should be mentioned in the article [3] -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the government, e.g. the military, will intervene in a patent application process and secretize the patent, probably for reasons of national interest. I am watching an interview (time 25:30) with famous patent officer Tom Valone [4] where he states that in the U.S. 4,000 patents have suffered this. Do we have some information on this in any of the patent-related articles? __ meco ( talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of completing a book on Soviet and Russian secret patents. I also refer to US and British patent secrecy. I have little information on other countries' practices. Some Wiki articles refer to secret French patents, but evidently the law and procedures are secret. Same for Germany. Later, when I have more time, I could take a stab at a section on this topic.-- JMartens ( talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. (a Dutch patent attorney agency) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it true that patenting is only useful when the patent holder has the financial capability to able to pay for defending their patent in court? Without the financial backing to support an infringement case, it appears that a patent holder's rights apparently can be violated at will by others without regard.
I have several ideas that are probably unique and patentable, but I personally am not a wealthy person. I personally don't have the technical skill or facilities to fully develop these into actual products or services, nor am I involved with companies that could carry them out to completion. As such I feel that I likely can not benefit financially from these ideas even if I did get a patent on them.
If these ideas can benefit the common good, then apparently open discussion and publishing without patenting them would ensure that multiple others will be able to develop the concepts, and yet none will be able to claim it as their own to the exclusion of others (or me), since my publishing will be available on the Internet and elsewhere as "prior art".
DMahalko ( talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of recent edits (sorry, but linking is not my strong point) have removed a couple of sections from criticism, namely the difficulty of fully searching prior art, and the humanitarian aspects of drug patents. The section on patent trolls has also changed. I would like to see the humanitarian aspects reinstated or incorporated into the existing paragraph that touches on it.
I would like to see the section on patent trolls expanded, and to cover the concept of the defensive patent, and fundamental technology patents, and the level of risk these pose on new entrants, particular in the tech sector. Any thoughts VeryRusty ( talk) 12:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The following is a proposed addition to the article summary. It has been criticized for failing to summarize content in the body of the article and for not having references.
Please provide supporting references and discuss where to best place the content.-- Nowa ( talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
¾-10 I think you will find that addressing the citation needed tags first will be effective at resolving many of the the clarification and dubious tags. As an encyclopedia, our mission to to summarize what other authoritative sources have presented.-- Nowa ( talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be useful, perhaps under the 'Criticism' section to discuss the cost & complexity of inventors having to patent in each jurisdiction (country) in which they wish to have protection, and the unaffordability of that to most private inventors. Currently there is no mention of the attempts to remedy this by having international patents, or Europe-wide patents. Although these attempts have failed to date, I think it would be useful if a paragraph about this issue were included. FreeFlow99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeFlow99 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
"The 1970 Indian Patent Act allowed the Indian pharmaceutical industry to develop local technological capabilities in this industry. This act transformed India from a bulk importer of pharmaceutical drugs to a leading exporter. The rapid evolution of Indian pharmaceutical industry since the mid-1970s highlights the fact that the design of the patent act was instrumental in building local capabilities even in a poor country like India.[37]"
It seems very odd to give this as a rationale supporting patent law when this law meant that drugs could not be patented but production methods could. This was a weakening of the international drugs companies control of India's drugs by patents. Indian pharmaceutical industry flourished because they could make drugs that were previously patent encumbered simply by developing a new production method. QuentinUK ( talk) 22:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that once a person takes a patent in any country, a patent for a same invention can not be taken by anyone else in another country. This as every patent has to be taken on a "new" idea, and so it isn't possible for anyone else to steal an idea and patent it in a country where the same idea has not yet been patented.
I think this is quite important information and should be noted here. 81.242.230.241 ( talk) 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This sentence
requires a reliable source. The provided source does not really help. I have removed the sentence for now. In my opinion, the EPC or PCT exist mainly for procedural simplification rather than "Because novelty is a requirement for patentability in each jurisdiction's patent law" or "to ensure that obtaining patent rights in one country does not interfere with obtaining patent rights in other countries". If patent applications are filed nationally in each of a number of countries, even if no priority is claimed under the Paris Convention and even if the patent applications are not filed all exactly on the same day, there will be no "interference" between obtaining patent rights in these different countries. Patent applications are generally published 18 months after filing. -- Edcolins ( talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to weigh in on whether this article and the Societal views on patents articles should be merged, then here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Societal views on patents. GDallimore ( Talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been in discussions with Chaser ( talk · contribs) about the best policy for linking to patent reference pages. I've been using IP.com lately and I recommend it (it's free, of course, or I wouldn't even mention it, with very powerful search syntax) -- I've linked to some of their patent pages using both Reference citations and, when there has been no exact match for a citation, in External Links, but some of those External Links have been deleted by other editors. Chaser suggested I post here to get feedback on this issue. My (revised) thought is that appropriateness should be determined on a case-by-case basis, so perhaps the proposed External Link should first be added to the Talk page for a given article to get clearance from other editors before adding it as an external link. Any thoughts? — Snarkosis ( talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the usefulness of the search query links, I consider it potentially quite useful when it is a highly focused search query that matches closely to, say, a specific technology that is the subject of a given Wikipedia article. Why wouldn't corresponding relevant patents be useful "additional information" for a given topic? I'm not saying in every case, but certainly in some cases, and therefore not "completely and utterly useless". That's my considered opinion anyway, but if the consensus is that it's always useless, then so be it, I won't bother with such links.
I concede your point about the ads, and perhaps my preference has been based too much on the layout and usability advantage that I think the IP.com pages have. In other words, I think the process of using IP.com is better than the process of using USPTO or espacenet, with better search and more features, but perhaps just looking directly at a single static page others might prefer a different site's patent dislpay. Personally, I think IP.com's layout and usability is superior, as can be seen in these 3 versions of the same patent page, from each service:
Again, this is my opinion, and I'll go along with the consensus on this -- if all patent links must be to USPTO or espacenet, even though currently editors post links to dozens of different patent sources, I can live with that, though I'll likely post fewer patents, as I prefer to use IP.com from a process point of view. Not a big deal. — Snarkosis ( talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
IP.com, although presenting patent text more clearly, appears to omit the drawings, presumably due to copyright. In my opinion drawings are often essential for understanding a patent. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 21:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi All
A new user, Mavady, wanted to add the following link to the article https://www.ipsmartup.com/learn. I reverted the addition, on the grounds that this looks a lot like link spam, and there are other sites that explain what a patent is in plain language. I asked Mavady what was up with this, and Mavady said "I actually found this content more helpful than the other references. This was really well written and even my kids got a good understanding from it. I am sorry if it appeared to be spam but I just wanted to add some simplicity to this complex subject." To be honest, I agree with Mavady that the explanation on that page is exceptionally clear. I went hunting for something good - really aimed at the public, and found some links. But to frank, I found nothing that is as clear, in my eyes. I objected to this link because of the way the page is constructed -- the top of the page is an FAQ for IPsmartup's services - the very clear information is in the middle of the page under Patent FAQs. The way the page is constructed, once cannot link directly to the clear information. Somebody who follows the link looks first at the the thing at the top of the page - basically an ad for the company. This makes it too link-spammy to me. But since this is one against one, it seemed reasonable to take this to talk. What do you all think? Jytdog ( talk) 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you rewrite the spam page with equally clear prose and reference the Patent Office web site. Greensburger ( talk) 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the nomination for deletion, as what I think is appropriate is a merger.
I propose that Societal views on patents be merged into Patent. Most of the content of Societal views on patents violates WP:OR or WP:SYN and the criticism content blends very easily into this article. The resulting article is not too long nor does it create undue weight -- it has about 5000 words, and as per WP:SIZE this is even under the recommended length of 6,000 to 10,000 words. I actually did the merger and it was reverted - you can see how the resulting article would look [ here]. Jytdog ( talk) 03:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the consensus, I have removed the tags proposing a merger. LT90001 ( talk) 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This material was recently added:
The article makes an interesting point, but I think before we include this material, we should find several more corroborating references.-- Nowa ( talk) 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this section to talk pending further vetting.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the references per se, but I don't know of any other instance where a respected scholar makes the point that a country's strong patent system can be used by another country as a weapon against them. This appears to be the thesis of the Pearce article. Regarding the Wall St. Journal article, that is behind a paywall and to be candid, I am not willing to pay $400 to take a look. I would nonetheless respect another editor's summary of the contents, particularly as it relates to the Pearce article.-- Nowa ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In the past, a similar national strategy was used to hobble the French colorant industry and Germany crushed the U.S. chemical industry prior to WWI using such a patent strategy. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Free text http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf
I reverted the deletions of all the edits to an algorithmic approach to avoiding patents -- I apologize for referring to Chin's work with superlatives adjectives - I have removed them and the hyperlink to him as it appears there is not a page about him. I m not affiliated with him in any way, but I do think this new type of approach is important for this article. -- Reginll ( talk) 02:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
References
My question is - who cares what these people think? Wikipedia would godzuple in size if we cite every paper published that criticized the patent system somehow. Generally we use secondary sources - reviews of issues - rather than primary sources like this one - for exactly this reason.
The primary economic theories supporting patent law hold that inventors and innovators need patents to recoup the costs associated with research, inventing, and commercializing; but this reasoning is weakened if the new technologies decrease these costs. [1] A 2016 paper argued for substantial weakening of patents because current technologies (e.g. 3-D printing, cloud computing, synthetic biology, etc.) have reduced the cost of innovation. [1]
References
I'll add that the argument is completely irrelevant to say, drugs, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and ten years or so to develop, and no 3D printer or internet of things is going to change that. but whatever Jytdog ( talk) 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context
Jytdog: I was just about to start into some major editing and I looked back at the article log to see if you had moved the benefit text out and fixed your mis-representation of Boldrin - but realized you not only didnt do that but had just cut another peer reviewed source from the criticism section and weakened the section even more. The Barnett article you cut reviewed over 70 articles that looked at the trivial nature of IP and has been cited 43 times according to Google Scholar. This appears to be a reliable source - exactly the kind I was about to add a lot more of -- would you please explain your reasoning for weakening the patent criticism section in detail. -- Trumpms ( talk) 11:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog: So I just went through the edit log of this page and the Societal views on patents page - and found that your editing is almost always reducing (e.g. removing content particularly that is critical of patents). I have no doubt that you are an editor of good will - but I noticed in your COI disclosure [6] that you "work for a startup company developing drugs for acute neurological disorders..." You appear to be technically sophisticated - so I would suspect that you personally or at the very least your employer is heavily invested in the patenting process, which appears to be a COI of your continued editing of these types of articles. I recommend that you do another "Self-initiated COI Investigation" - but from my skimming of your edits I think the bias is clear. That said - I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what to do about COI. I think you should continue to actively edit this page - and put the best possible cited arguments for the continued use of the patent system - but put it in Patent#Rationale (or even change that section title to "Patent Benefits". In addition, however, I request that you stop deleting criticisms supported by peer-reviewed articles. I think with both those actions we can make a really strong wikipedia article. -- Trumpms ( talk) 11:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog was unable to provide any reasoned argument showing that he/she was not actively weakening the patent criticism section on my talk page or hat he.she did not have a COI. I have asked him/her to stop deleting content from that section and to have other wikipedians do it and instead be constructive and work on substantiating the benefit section. I plan to beef up the criticism section that is really weak at this point first - and then I will beef up the benefit section that at least has some of the main content but it missing many references. I will only make statements that can be backed up with a peer-reviewed study in an archival well-respected journal. I would ask that other wikipedians carefully monitor and undo any vandalism or inappropriate editing by either myself or Jytdog. Thank you - Trumpms ( talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've move the following material from the Criticism section to here for further vetting. It's not clear if the referenced book is notable, although the authors certainly are. If the book is notable, I recommend an article be written about it first, before we summarize it here, or someone finds a reference that summarizes the content of the book.
Other web evidence -- there are 6 pages of google search in News for "Against intellectual monopoly":
It appears clear that the impact of this book is much more concentrated in academia and law journals (very notable) and although covered in the popular press to some extent (marginally notable) it appears largely marginalized by the mainstream media, which of course has a strong COI to maintain current IP rules (the book also covers copy right) -- so I am not sure how to deal with it in Wikipedia.
I am now going to turn my attention to beefing up the benefits of patents section. -- Trumpms ( talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following from the benefits section:
Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies don't invest in making the invention a product. [1] failed verification
References
I tried to find a citation for this and could not. All the first hits on Google for "wont innovate without patent" are anti-patent references. In looking for it I found the opposite in a post by the CEO of an open source electronics company about "IP Obesity" [8]. Obviously not all companies share this sentiment of "If your idea is unique, easily copied, and can be sold for profit in a local market, it will be." So I think the sentence should be changed to:
Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, some companies may not invest in making the invention a product.
Although we still need at least one ref for it - Trumpms ( talk) 14:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Trumpms ( talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the word "detailed". The statute only requires the disclosure to be sufficient for the "person skilled in the art", and patentees have an interest in disclosing as little as possible. Rbakels ( talk) 08:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to improve the article by adding te word "detailed" to disclosure, but it was removed.
Should I have used the (American) legal term "enabling"? Article 83 of the European Patent Convention says "Disclosure of the invention. The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art."
Just the word "disclosure" could be understood as just a requirement for the inventor to tell that he made the invention. The above provision shows that it is more than that. Rbakels ( talk) 11:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Using 2018 data derived from AIPLA Economic Survey [1], the average cost of a US patent application is between $30,000 and $60,000.
Explanation of issue: The current information on the page is from 2000 and excludes some of the costs of a patent.
References supporting change: [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Russkrajec ( talk) 12:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)