Re: computerimplemetierte Erfindung vs. Software
On 20 Sep 2004, at 15:49, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Am Monday 20 September 2004 15:18 verlautbarte Florian Weimer :
> > Dazu muß das Patent rechtzeitig bekannt werden und nicht erst in den
> > letzten fünf Jahren seiner Lebenszeit durchgesetzt werden. Die
>
> Das ist eines der wirklich dicken Probleme. Wäre das Patent bekannt,
> würde sich die Technik nicht durchsetzen. Also warten die Verwerter
> bis es sich durchgesetzt hat und genug Investitionen getätigt sind und
> halten dann die Hand auf.
Gegenvorschlaege sind moeglich, z.B.
"In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or
more simply, lock-in, is a situation in which a customer is dependent
on a vendor for products and services and cannot move to another
vendor without substantial costs, real and/or perceived. By the
creation of these costs to the customer, lock-in favours the company
(vendor) at the expense of the consumer. Lock in costs create a
barrier to entry in a market. The concept of vendor lock-in is often
used in the computer industry to describe the effects of a lack of
compatibility between different systems. Lock-in effects may harm
competition in huge market segments. RF or at least RAND licensed
open standards may be seen as a solution to limit vendor lock-in
effects. In some sense, popular F/OSS solutions like the Linux
operating system may represent some kind of open standard by
themselves. In a time where most computers are interconnected by some
kind of network, interoperability is a key issue. Hence, open
standards are most important. However, it is difficult to create RF
or RAND licensed open standards if it is not known whether or not
there is any third party holding at least one patent, the protected
technology of which being necessary to implement the standard.
Perhaps it will be necessary to think on other tracks than
traditionally done. One might, for example, imagine the patent law to
be amended by introducing a rule allowing major standardising
institutions like DIN, ISO or W3C to publish a full technical
disclosure for a proposed interoperability standard in some kind of
an Official Gazette issued by some competent Authority on EU level.
Then, each and every patent holder has an opportunity to oppose
against this proposal within a certain term of, say, nine months or
so. If a patent holder opposes, the standardising organisation as
well as the public will be notified accordingly. An opposition can be
absolute (i.e. the patent holder refuses to license the patent at
all) or relative (i.e. the patent holder is willing to provide a RAND
license only). If a patent holder does not oppose in due time the
grant of a RF license will be stipulated by law. Such procedure would
not unduly harm the interests of patent holders (they merely have to
closely watch the Official Gazette and make up their mind) because of
they will not be forced to grant any license. On the other side, if
no opposition has been filed, the standards bodies can be sure that
the proposed standard is in fact patent free. If oppositions are
raised, they can re-think on whether or not drop that proposal.
However, as in many other cases, the problems are in the gory
details. For example, it will not be easy to deal with unexamined or
even unpublished patent applications. Furthermore, the proposed
procedure might not scale very well. If thousands or even tens of
thousands of proposals would be published per year, the burden for
the patent owners would be clearly inacceptable. On the other hand,
patent owners must be hindered to simply block any standard without
even looking at the details by simply filing objections on the basis
of each and every patent available in their patent portfolio. If the
total number of published proposals per year is sufficiently low this
might be achieved by requiring a modest Official fee or by imposing a
duty to substantiate the Opposition."
> Man müsste beim Patentrecht einen ähnlichen Verfall haben, wie im
> Markenrecht. Wer seine Marke nicht benutzt und verteidigt, der hat sie
> verwirkt. Damit wäre dieses Verhalten erschwert.
Ouch, also das mit dem "Verteigigen" halte ich fuer ein einigermassen
zweischneidiges Schwert. Will man z.B. IBM und MS wirklich zwingen,
alle Welt wegen Patentverletzung zu verklagen, bei Strafe der
Verwirkung und des Verfalls des eigenen Patentportfolios?
Gruss,
Axel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx