IP: Re: Melbourne man patents the wheel

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:49:32 +1000
>From: Nathan Cochrane <ncochrane@theage.fairfax.com.au>
>
>Hi Dave
>
>I wrote this piece, and the astute will notice the term "patent lawyer",
>when it should be "patent attorney". In Australia they are quite
>different things. I wrote "attorney", but it appears an over-zealous
>sub-editor seeking to thwack every stray Americanism made the
>replacement several times in the article without consulting me.
>
>Further recent, relevant information here:
>
>2001 and he's patented the wheel
>http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/07/03/FFXQ7G9HJOC.html
>
>Why copyright promises justice for all
>http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/07/03/FFXWEKDHJOC.html
>
>Following the patent craft
>http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/06/19/FFXD7AEUYNC.html
>
>Division over new patent category
>http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/06/19/FFXQBVO43OC.html
>
>'Digital S11' rails against patents
>http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/06/19/FFXEPDEUYNC.html
>
>IP Australia (Australian Patent Office)
>http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
>
>Cheers
>
>Nathan Cochrane
>Deputy IT Editor
>The Age
>Melbourne, Australia
>http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/columns/broadway
>http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/columns/openline
>http://www.it.fairfax.com.au
>http://www.theage.com.au
>
>
>David Farber wrote:
> >
> > >Delivered-To: upd-discuss@venice.essential.org
> > >From: love@cptech.org
> > >
> > >Under the current draft of the Hague Convention proposal, the exclusive
> > >jurisdiction for the validity and enforcement of this patent would be
> > >the country of registration.  Jamie
> > >
> > >http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/02/FFX0ADFPLOC.html
> > >
> > >Melbourne man patents the wheel
> > >
> > >By NATHAN COCHRANE
> > >Monday 2 July 2001
> > >
> > >A Melbourne man has patented the wheel. Freelance patent lawyer John
> > >Keogh was issued with an Innovation Patent for a "circular
> > >transportation facilitation device" within days of the new patent system
> > >being invoked in May.
> > >
> > >But he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other
> > >fundamental advances in civilisation.
> > >
> > >Mr Keogh said he patented the wheel to prove the innovation patent
> > >system was flawed because it did not need to be examined by the patent
> > >office, IP Australia.
> > >
> > >"The patent office would be required to issue a patent for anything," he
> > >said. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on it.
> > >
> > >"The impetus came from the Federal Government. Their constituents
> > >claimed the cost of obtaining a patent was too high so the government
> > >decided to find a way to issue a patent more easily."
> > >
> > >He said the name should be changed to "Registered Innovation", to avoid
> > >confusion with standard patents, which grant broad monopoly rights.
> > >
> > >Standard patents have to be crafted by a registered patent lawyer who
> > >has engineering or science qualifications. Patents must also show an
> > >inventive step, a significant advance. The innovation patent, which
> > >replaces the petty patent, has to show only an innovative step and can
> > >be prepared without professional help.
> > >
> > >Commissioner of Patents Vivienne Thom would not comment on Mr Keogh's
> > >claims. But in an early statement she said small business has enjoyed
> > >lower costs because a lawyer did not have to be retained.
> > >
> > >"Also, to obtain the patent the applicant must make a declaration that
> > >they are the inventor," Dr Thom said.
> > >
> > >"Obtaining a patent for a wheel would require a false claim, which is a
> > >very serious matter and would certainly invalidate the patent as well as
> > >amount to a misrepresentation on the part of the applicant and
> > >unprofessional conduct by any professional adviser."
> > >
> > >Mr Keogh is unrepentant. He said the patent office goaded patent lawyers
> > >into filing frivolous innovation patents during a roadshow last year to
> > >sell the concept. He said courts would have to decide the fate of the
> > >system when infringement suits were inevitably brought.
> > >
> > >It could also lead to consumer confusion when marketers claimed a
> > >product was "patented".
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Upd-discuss mailing list
> > >Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> > >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
> >
> > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
>
>
>This email and any files transmitted with it may be legally privileged and
>confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
>not disclose or use the information contained in it.  If you have received
>this email in error, please notify us by return email and permanently delete
>the document.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/