"Not victory, but progress"
Within the law review titled Remembering the Public's Interest in the Patent System - A Post-Grant Opposition Designed to Benefit the Public, one has the text:
As the French essayist and moralist Joseph Joubert stated, "[T]he aim of argument, or discussion, should not be victory, but progress." With this limited purpose in mind, each proposal discussed below is taken from a public-policy perspective, without regard to whether the suggestions will be implemented in the Patent Act of 2005.
Noting that the US Constitution speaks of promoting progress, not of innovation and not of monopolies, the conclusion of the law review:
P79 While the Constitution gives Congress the power to adopt a patent system that awards monopolies in exchange for innovations that benefit society, the interest of the public must not be forgotten in the implementation of the system. Because Congress has neglected the public's interest and caused the current system to swell far beyond its constitutionally intended scope, clamor for change has arrived on several fronts. But change is certainly no easy task, and the Patent Reform Act of 2005 is but one step in that arduous journey.
P80 To ensure that near term patent reform reduces the very real public problem of bad patents, adoption of a more robust post-grant opposition should be an absolute necessity. Overemphasizing the interests of players other than the public has caused legislative reforms to fail in the past, and such mistakes must not be repeated this time around. The public's priority should predominate and their welfare should be the focus as the debate on the particulars of a viable post-grant opposition continues.
No, the article does not mention Cecil Quillen, but it does cite Qin Shi, Reexamination, Opposition, or Litigation? Legislative Efforts to Create a Post-Grant Grant Patent Quality Control System, 31 AIPLA Q.J. 433,435 (2003). Qin Shi does talk about Quillen.
As the French essayist and moralist Joseph Joubert stated, "[T]he aim of argument, or discussion, should not be victory, but progress." With this limited purpose in mind, each proposal discussed below is taken from a public-policy perspective, without regard to whether the suggestions will be implemented in the Patent Act of 2005.
Noting that the US Constitution speaks of promoting progress, not of innovation and not of monopolies, the conclusion of the law review:
P79 While the Constitution gives Congress the power to adopt a patent system that awards monopolies in exchange for innovations that benefit society, the interest of the public must not be forgotten in the implementation of the system. Because Congress has neglected the public's interest and caused the current system to swell far beyond its constitutionally intended scope, clamor for change has arrived on several fronts. But change is certainly no easy task, and the Patent Reform Act of 2005 is but one step in that arduous journey.
P80 To ensure that near term patent reform reduces the very real public problem of bad patents, adoption of a more robust post-grant opposition should be an absolute necessity. Overemphasizing the interests of players other than the public has caused legislative reforms to fail in the past, and such mistakes must not be repeated this time around. The public's priority should predominate and their welfare should be the focus as the debate on the particulars of a viable post-grant opposition continues.
No, the article does not mention Cecil Quillen, but it does cite Qin Shi, Reexamination, Opposition, or Litigation? Legislative Efforts to Create a Post-Grant Grant Patent Quality Control System, 31 AIPLA Q.J. 433,435 (2003). Qin Shi does talk about Quillen.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home