The third panel at the patent, innovation and antitrust conference has begun, and here is the line-up:
Panel III: The Patent System
We are on the second panel at the patents, innovation and antitrust conference.
Here is the line-up:
Panel II: Patents as Property Rights
I’m at the “Patents and the Commercialization of Innovation” conference, and Damien Geradin is speaking about how the various theories of royalty-stacking theories “fail to account for cross-licensing.”
There is a great deal of confusion between the minimum cumulative royalty rate, the maximum cumulative royalty rate and the average cumulative royalty rates that apply to the implementation of a standard.
This is the first of several panels devoted to considering the interplay of the patent system, innovation and antitrust.
Here’s the agenda for this morning:
Panel I: Patents in Standards
Today, I’ll be attending, and hopefully live-blogging, or live-Twittering, about “Patents and the Commercialization of Innovation,” which is the topic of the George Mason University/Microsoft Annual Conference on the Law and Economics of Innovation. This is the second annual version of this conference, and it is being held at the Hilton Arlington, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA.
The conference this year has an impressive agenda and list of speakers and presentations — including Richard Epstein, Bruce Kobayashi, Adam Mosoff, Greg Sidak and Henry Smith. The last conference was more directly focused on antitrust and software. This conference delves into the interface with patent reform, a subject that some of the biggest tech players in Washington, including Microsoft, have championed.
Here’s the conference boilerplate:
[This conference] will address the role of patents in the commercialization of innovation—an area of significant and enduring controversy. In particular, the conference will focus on three interrelated aspects of the debate over the law and economics of patents: The intersection of patents and antitrust, particularly in technology standards; the economics of the patent system and patent reform; and the proper understanding (and implications) of patents as property.
It will be interesting to see how Microsoft squares its generally hard-line (or maximalist) attitude towards copyright protection with its more liberal (or minimalist) approach to patent law! Check back here at DrewClark.com – or on my Twitter page – for frequent updates!
Note: The George Mason University/Microsoft Annual Conference on the Law and Economics of Innovation is not affiliated with the Information Economy Project at George Mason University School of Law, a program with which I am affiliated, as the Assistant Director. See the “About” section for information about my activities.
I have an article in ip-watch.org about the Federal Circuit Court case In re Bilski.
High US Court Reconsiders Policy Of Patenting Business Methods
Link This Article Print
By Drew Clark for Intellectual Property Watch
WASHINGTON, DC – The chief US appeals court that rules on patent disputes has squarely reconsidered whether the United States’ 1998 decision to allow greater berth for business method patents was the right intellectual property policy.
Adding heft to the position of changing course on business method patents was the US Patent and Trademark Office, which challenged a patent application on a method for financial hedging by inventors Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw.
The USPTO urged the court to reject the patent as ineligible subject matter. It offered a standard for invalidating the patent that demonstrated a dramatic change of course for the US government over the past 10 years.
Patent Legislation To Come Before Copyright Legislation
By Drew Clark
SAN JOSE, February 26, 2007 – Legislation to overhaul aspects of the patent system could take shape in as few as two or three weeks, said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Internet.
“This is an issue that doesn’t break down on partisan grounds,” said Berman, adding that the technology sector’s desire to seek changes in patent laws has “created a groundswell, a strong momentum for reform, to make it the highest priority of our subcommittee.”