2005 TechnoLawyer @ Awards…Neil talks smack

May 31, 2005 on 3:41 pm | In Weblogs | 1 Comment

He didn’t REALLY talk smack, but he did (in an email sent to blawgers everywhere) taunt the fact that there has been “poor support for blawgs thus far” in the 2005 TechnoLawyer @ Awards.  The voting is half over and Dennis Kennedy’s blog is in the lead (of one of the categories) with a whopping THREE votes.  THREE!  Sad, sad, sad.

In case you want to vote for your favorite blogger…here are the blog categories:  Favorite Practice Management Blog and Favorite Practice Area Blog.  Here is a link to the “Official @ Awards Home Page:  http://www.technolawyer.com/tlawards.asp” and the “Official @ Awards Ballot:  http://www.technolawyer.com/tlballot2005.htm.”

I’d beg for your vote for this blog, but what are the chances that a speciality blog (such as “The Invent Blog”) would have a chance against all of the other blogs (my favorite is Homann’s the [non]billable hour blog]?  I’d have better odds at winning one of the other awards…i.e., for the various things I write (IP Memes, TechnoFeature: The Benefits of Health Savings Accounts for Small Law Offices, and/or TechnoFeature: The Experiences of a Diehard PC-Using Attorney Who Switched to a Mac).

If you are a TechnoLawyer member…go vote!

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

WIPO SMEs Newsletter

May 31, 2005 on 11:44 am | In Independent Inventors | Comments Off

One great resource, if you aren’t already subscribed, is the “WIPO SMEs Newsletter.”  (SME stands for “Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises”)

WIPO SMEs Newsletter is a monthly e-publication providing reader with useful intellectual property information contained in original/latest/new articles, links to articles already in the internet, case studies, best practices, forthcoming IP/SMEs relevant events, published presentations on our web site.  We hope you find it useful and informative.  We encourage you to share the newsletter or item of interest with friends and colleagues.  For past issues and information on our Division activities please visit http://www.wipo.int/sme

This month’s issue contains a number of articles, including:

A Provisional Application – An Important Tool in the Right Hands.  The article by Ian Cockburn, entitled “A Provisional Application – An Important Tool in the Right hands “ looks at the advantages of using the provisional application, in the context of the United States of America, and explains how a provisional application differs from a patent application.

Inventors Handbook: How to Apply for a Patent (by Nesta Creative Investor).  The objective of the UK National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) is to pioneer ways of supporting and promoting talent, innovation and creativity in science, technology and the arts. In meeting its objective, NESTA commissioned Messrs. Peter Bissell and Graham Barker to prepare a handbook for providing step-by-step guidance to the process of invention and innovation. It also provides tips on developing an idea into a real product, an overview of protecting intellectual property, and advice on ways to get an idea into the commercial world - from license deals to making and selling a product yourself. 

A Toolkit for Universities and Companies That Wish to Undertake Collaborative Research Projects.  Prepared by the Lambert Working Group on Intellectual Property, with the objective of assisting universities and companies, which wish to undertake collaborative research projects with each other to do so in a reduced time frame, while having examples of best practice and models to facilitate the negotiation process. 

Enjoy….

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Dual monitors!

May 31, 2005 on 10:33 am | In Tech Tips | 1 Comment

On my list of geeky things to do has been “dual monitors.” My youngest brother figured out how to do it, so I forced him to show me yesterday. 

After about 15 minutes of my time this morning¦

Dualmonitors

Cost:  FREE!!! (I only had to find an old video card and a spare monitor).

Now I can keep my email open while I work in the other window, or the patent drawings while I work on the spec.  The possibilities are endless.

If anyone else is interested in the details, let me know and I’ll kick up a full explanation.

[update:  see my follow up post HERE]

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Patent Reform: Do Small Entities Support the Status Quo?

May 26, 2005 on 12:01 am | In Legislation/Regulation | 6 Comments

It’s not often that I disagree with patent blogger extraordinaire Dennis Crouch…but today I do.  Earlier, he posted on "Patent Reform: Congress Choosing Sides" and made the statement that "Start-ups and individual inventors [have] the goal of keeping the status quo."

In a world where the public views our patent system as a wreck…maintaining the status quo isn’t an option.  We have problems that need to be fixed, that is a fact.  HOWEVER, those spending the time proposing the fixes (large entities) aren’t concerned with fixing ALL of the problems, but instead seek to fix the problems that impact them the most. 

You can’t really blame them…it is human nature to be selfish.  Did I just call them "selfish?"  Yes I did.  Anyone who proposes reforming the patent system by backing reforms that will reduce their liability or chance of being sued are not acting in the public good…they are promoting their self interests under a banner of "reform."  That is wrong and opposing such changes is justified.

Back to Dennis’ comment about small entities being pro status quo.  I disagree…I think that small entities in general support reformations to the patent system, in fact, small entities support a number of the current proposals.  HOWEVER, they will not support those "reforms" proposed by large entities for no purpose other than to avoid liability/damages. 

Let’s look at the major topics on the table (I’ll use most of Shaver’s list (which I think came from his notes on the Buchanan CLE)) and I’ll give you my off the cuff projections:

1.  Adoption of a first to file system.  Small entities aren’t often all that organized…need time to get their ideas in order, hire a patent attorney, etc.  The race to the Patent Office is not small entity friendly..most of them don’t know that a race is going on. 

2.  Post grant administrative review of new patents.  Small entities are arguably more concerned with quality patents than large entities.  Large entities tend to be the ones who file patent applications on everything but the kitchen sink (just in case a competitor ever sues them and they need countersuit material).  I don’t foresee small entities opposing post grant review. 

3.  Publication of all application within 18 months. More harmonization.  Burdens anyone who files patent applications but lets them go abandoned before issue.  Does it hurt small entities more than large?  Tough call which way small entities will fall…I personally think that publication of all is fine.   

4.  Limits on continuation practice.  This type of practice is not typically performed by small entities.

5.  Modification or elimination of penalty for willful infringement.  Small entities do oppose this.  Without the threat of willful infringement, the worst damages that a corporation could have is paying a reasonable royalty + perhaps attorneys’ fees.  That doesn’t give a corporation much of an incentive to settle/license (pay a reasonable royalty).  Eliminate willful infringement and you can count on less settlements and more patent trials.

6.  Modification or elimination of standard for inequitable conduct of attorney.  I can’t see how small entities would oppose this any more than large entities.

7.  Elimination of the best mode requirement.  I can’t see how small entities would oppose this any more than large entities.

8.  Reinvigoration of the non-obviousness standard.  I can’t see how small entities would oppose this any more than large entities.

9.  Modification of rules for injunctions.  Small entities will oppose this.  Like willfulness above, without the threat of an injunction, large entities would NEVER settle a case…instead opting for a "we’ll see you in court" approach to small entities that complain of patent infringement.

Thus, in summary, I hardly think that opposing SOME of the patent reform proposals (injunctive relief, willfulness and first-to-file) makes small entities in support of the "status quo."  Then again…that is just my opinion. 

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Tool for determining patent terms

May 25, 2005 on 10:52 am | In Patent Searching | Comments Off

As Gollum might say, "Hobbits are sneaky tricksters."  Guess what else is a sneaky trickster…the MPEP when it comes to patent terms.  Did you know that, depending on when a patent issued (particularly those that issued around the time the patent term went from 17 to 20), sometimes a parent application can have a term longer than a child?  It can happen.

When I have a patent term question, my "precious" is often St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens’ "Patent Calendar."  At that site you can type in the earliest effective filing date, the application filing date, the issue date and any term adjustment to determine when maintenance fees are due AND when the patent will expire.

They have a Trademark Calendar too…

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Apple patents or Microsoft patents….which are more interesting?

May 24, 2005 on 10:36 pm | In Interesting Patents | 2 Comments

Have you checked out patentmojo.com yet?

Mojo

It allows you to set up RSS feeds of patent searches (i.e., every time company A receives a patent…send me an email).  Pretty slick concept.  They have a number of "sample" RSS feeds set up…a great way to try out their services. 

Surprisingly, there are (as of this second) 93 people subscribed to the Apple patent feed and only 26 subscribed to the Microsoft patent feed.  Does that mean that more people find Apple/Mac/iPod patents Interesting than Microsoft/Windows patents?

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Have you been rethinking with me?

May 23, 2005 on 6:00 am | In The-Practice-of-Law | Comments Off

Another of my side projects is the rethink(ip) blog.  It is a collaborative effort between fellow bloggers Buchanan and Sorocco where we talk about what we like and don’t like about the practice of ip law. 

Recent posts included:

  1. The one thing you should do for every person who sends you a referral.
  2. The battle of the sexes in rethinking ip law.
  3. Why the odds are stacked against anyone considering changing the way they practice law.
  4. The one thing you can teach your clients to make them "hot for teacher (you)."
  5. How you can use tools like TabletPCs to impact your clients and your practice.

If you haven’t checked rethink(ip) blog out in a while…drop on by.  If you want to receive rethink(ip) posts via email, use this RSS feed at this site (Rmail) or this site (BlogLet).

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

IP Memes

May 22, 2005 on 3:15 pm | In Articles | Comments Off

One of the various side projects I work on is a bi-weekly newsletter for TechnoLawyer called "IP Memes."  If you don’t receive it (it is free), here’s a subscription link.  Tl_ipmemes

Here’s a teaser for the next issue (Monday):

IP Memes: Copyright Office Feeds Your Firm — and Other Hot IP Issues
By Stephen M. Nipper
In the next issue of IP Memes, you’ll learn about a new way to receive the latest news from the US Copyright Office, why an Indiana man is suing pop-star Britney Spears, and what people are saying about injunctive relief, one of the hottest topics in patent reform. All that plus the IP Memes IP Blog of the Week.

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

German spam

May 22, 2005 on 9:59 am | In Tech Tips | Comments Off

Been seeing lots of spam in your inbox in German?  It is the Sober.q virus (on someone else’s computer) sending you (believe it or not) right wing German propaganda.  See PCWorld for the scoop.

Capture522200551303_pm

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Constitutional argument against changing injunctive relief

May 18, 2005 on 10:03 am | In Legislation/Regulation | Comments Off

Dennis Crouch at the Patently-O blog raises an interesting point…is there a Constitutional argument regarding whether or not injunctive relief can be only available if the patentee is using the patent and/or injunctive relief could eliminated outright (as proposed in the current patent reform bill drafts/conversations).  I anxiously await the comments to be posted to his post…

What does this mean in English?  [note…I’m just generally explaining the issue…don’t nit pick me on the details]

Currently, a patent holder can go to court and ask the court to enjoin (order to stop) infringing conduct by an (alleged) infringer if the patent holder can prove:  (1) they will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction does not issue; (2) their injury outweighs the harm to the alleged infringer if the preliminary injunction is issued; (3) it is in the public’s interest to grant the preliminary injunction, and (4) the patent holder has a likelihood of success.  This whole process can take a number of days/weeks…

Corporations who get sued often for patent infringement don’t like injunctive relief (obviously).  They don’t like having a court shut them down…ordering them to stop producing the product. 

The threat of an injunction is a big tool for small businesses/independent inventors against a large corporation.  Sometimes it is the only thing that will bring the corporation to the bargaining table.  Without it…corporations may be inclined to give small businesses/independent inventors the “we’ll see you in court…hope you can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills while you battle us” treatment.

Thus…I can’t see small entities in any way agreeing to eliminate injunctive relief and/or scale it back.

Time will tell…

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^