WIPO World Patent Report and interoperability

The WIPO World Patent Report is out.

It contains very interesting statistics about patent filings and issuances, filtered by countries, applicants, technologies, patent offices, etc.

It is interesting to note that the top 10 PCT applicants are all in the high tech sector (except maybe Toyota):

MATSUSHITA (JP)
PHILIPS (NL)
SIEMENS (DE)
HUAWEI (CN)
ROBERT BOSCH (DE)
TOYOTA (JP)
QUALCOMM (US)
MICROSOFT (US)
MOTOROLA (US)
NOKIA (FI)

Although not every patent issued goes through the PCT route, this is still a good trend indicator.

It may undermine the case of those who maintain that a single patent system is suitable for any industries.

It is obvious that the number of patents reading on a pharmaceutical product and a high tech product is different by several orders of magnitude. The dynamics of patent protection thus differ greatly in both industries.

Although the titles should stay the same, regardless of the industry, the rules governing how to access a set of patents (ie. get a license) should be different based on the industry, in particular to address the interoperability concerns of the high tech industry.

Open Standard and public procurement

Standards should be open.

Indeed, the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, in a speech in June 18, 2008, publicly supported the use of open source software by public organisations. She further stated "the Commission [...] must not accept closed standards".

Public administrations are pushing for procurement of technologies primarily based on open standards, following a cost cutting objective.

Yeah, right, but what does it mean? When is a standard open?

This simple question generates quite some discussions.
Wikipedia does a good job of listing definitions, which are very often incompatible.
In a nusthell, an open standard should be accessible to anyone, at a reasonable cost.

The devil being in the details, agents often disagree on what these terms mean, in particular the reasonable cost.
Certain standard organizations or public administrations will interpret reasonable cost as free, other that it means 'sufficient to compensate for the research and development effort, but not more' (cost of a standard is mostly determined by the price for accessing the patents which cover it).

The problem is, as it is becoming a criterion for public procurement, some companies could be excluded from such procurements, on the basis that they offer a technology which is not based on open standards (read 'not free'...), leaving the door open for discrimination action.

So now the EC is backpedaling, and issued another interesting statement in preparation of the meeting on IPR and ICT standardisation in November 2008: "the use of general terms such as ‘open standards’ in order to refer to specific conditions in public procurement should be avoided, as it introduces confusion between the general principles of standardisation and the specific criteria serving specific needs".

What a mess!

Where is Google going?

There has been recently a lot of agitation about Chrome, the new Google browser, and its infamous Terms of Service (section 8 and 11 are enlightening).

Many have speculated about this move. The best analysis (so far) I could find was made by the Financial Times.

There are thus some signs that Google is trying to strengthen its position as a market leader for keyword searches by controlling the media used to collect information about browsing habits or to display the ads.

One quick look at the European Patent Registry gives some perspective on what could be the next moves for Google.

Google is pushing to extend its reach from the Internet ad market to the radio broadcasting ad market (what about TV?). Many patents can be found on the topic: Content Depot, DIGITAL MEDIA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, METHOD FOR PURCHASING BROADCASTING TIME, etc.

Google seems also very keen to improve its measure of click through ratios for identifying relevant websites. Controling the browser will come in handy then...

It's not new, but there are quite a number of patents apps for ads on mobile devices. I can very well imagine how a broadcasted radio ad and a textual ad could interact on a mobile...

It will be interesting to see how long can Google maintain its image of a friendly, good-doer company.

Online software development

Development environments are moving online, in what is called a PaaS (Platform as a Service). Force.com, the platform created by SalesForce.com, is the dominant player, but LongJump takes up the fight by issuing a coding environment.

Decision criteria for either platform may include price, features, availability, support. But would anyone consider the terms and conditions?

I went quickly over terms and conditions of both, and they both contain terms which literally made me fall off my chair.

Please consider:

LongJump T&Cs
OWNERSHIP
[...] Any intellectual property and information, such as data, feedback, advice, information, designs that you give to LongJump during the Term of this Agreement will belong to Relationals and you will receive no compensation for such information.

SalesForce.com Master Subscription Agreement
4. Account Information and Data
Salesforce.com does not own any data, information or material that you submit to the Service in the course of using the Service ("Customer Data"). [...]

5. Intellectual Property Ownership
Salesforce.com alone (and its licensors, where applicable) shall own all right, title and interest, including all related Intellectual Property Rights, in and to [...] any suggestions, ideas, enhancement requests, feedback, recommendations or other information provided by you or any other party relating to the Service. [...]

24. Definitions
[...] "Customer Data" means any data, information or material provided or submitted by you to the Service in the course of using the Service; [...]


One question is unclear: can the T&Cs be interpreted that the IP of the newly developed software is assigned to the PaaS owner?

Scary.

Welcome to my blog

This is my first post... Be indulgent!

I hope you will find some of my posts interesting, and hopefully inspiring.

Have fun!

Nicolas