ACT
The home stretch for the unitary patent?
Te idea to create a community patent in the EU was launched nearly 40 years ago. It marked a strong desire to protect IP while encouraging, rewarding and stimulating innovation in Europe. For decades, political, legal and technical discussions have taken place at EU level, but no agreement has ever been reached to establish a single patent. In 2011, discussions about the European patent system took an important leap forward, or so we thought.
Last year, Europe signalled progress and unity by overcoming the historic language disputes that were continually postponing progress on the community patent. EU officials invoked the so-called ‘enhanced cooperation’ procedure, whereby a group of member states can agree to go ahead with cooperative measures without involving all 27 EU member states, thereby breaking the deadlock that had held the legislation back for decades.
again a source of great disappointment and frustration for innovative entrepreneurs.
The lack of a unified mechanism to protect innovations poses a serious challenge to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly during the current economic turmoil. A single patent system would give entrepreneurs lower costs, greater consistency and robust protection of their IP across Europe, and allow for continued investment and innovation. Disagreements about whether Germany, France or the UK will host the central division of the EU patent court are secondary at best and irrelevant at worst.
Sensaris, a technology company with four employees that specialises in developing small, mobile, wireless environmental sensors, is the perfect example of a European SME that has invested heavily in innovation and would benefit immensely from a unified patent system. Michael Setton, chief executive officer of Sensaris and a French member of ACT, explained that the current
their success. Tribeka in the UK is changing the way software and entertainment products are delivered through retail services. Its 28 employees created a solution that allows retailers and software stores to offer products that are created onsite. For Tribeka, patenting its technology was a crucial part of securing early investments. However, after spending tens of thousands of euros attempting to file patents in Europe and having little to show for it, the company felt that patenting in the US was the only way forward. Daniel Doll- Steinberg, Tribeka’s chief executive officer and member of ACT, has no doubt that Europe needs a unified patent regime as part of measures to spur its innovation capacity.
ACT is encouraging policymakers to pursue a much-needed agreement in 2012. The EU needs to show a unified front and allow its entrepreneurs to benefit from strong IP protection if it wants to remain competitive and achieve even greater innovation. In a global market, a fragmented and overcomplicated patent system is, quite simply, obsolete.
Mobile applications: a bright spot amid gloom
Tis is not the first time that the soſtware industry has enjoyed something of a boom, but thanks to the explosion of the mobile applications (apps) market, soſtware is more than ever specifically tailored to people’s needs.
THE INABILITY OF MEMBER STATES TO PUT ECONOMIC GROWTH INTERESTS AHEAD OF POLITICAL ONES WAS ONCE AGAIN A SOURCE OF GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT AND FRUSTRATION FOR INNOVATIVE ENTREPRENEURS.
Four years after the first app store was launched, the manner in which people interact with the world around them has been changed by the new technology. Fuelled by the accessible nature of apps, the creativity of and opportunities for the software developers who make them seems unlimited.
As the EU Polish Presidency struggled to finalise the long-awaited agreement on a new patent system, and when it seemed that national interests were finally being put aside in favour of the greater good, the EU member states failed to agree on the location of the EU patent court’s central division. The inability of member states to put economic growth interests ahead of political ones was once
cumbersome process stopped him from filing patents in the EU and compelled him to patent his creations in the US. “I hope member states realise soon that delaying this process discourages innovation and damages employment prospects,” he says.
SMEs have countless stories that show how the creation and protection of IP is critical to
10 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
App stores have made software as affordable and risk-free to enjoy as news or music. Want to find out where to buy the book that is lying on your friend’s coffee table? A ‘buy local’ advocate-turned-software developer has created an app for you. Your eight-year- old child needs some help with spelling? Why not use an app that was created by a teacher- turned-software developer? Need to make a PDF of a signed document without a scanner? Use an app that was created by a former enterprise software developer.
By 2015, it is thought, the app marketplace will be worth more than $50 billion. With more than 80 percent of apps being created by micro-businesses (fewer than 10 employees) in the US, apps are an industry which offers massive job creation and continued potential.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271