Some of the people advocating software patents, business model patents and Internet patents might be suspected to do so because of their own personal financial interest.
For example, European patent attorneys received an additional turnover of about 500 million Euro from the illegal granting of 30.000 software patents. The Commission estimates the agent's fees for one European patent as about 17.000 Euro. Multiplying by 30.000 gives 510 million.
So our side might be inclined to dismiss everything coming from a patent attorney as purely motivated by personal greed without even looking at what they are saying. I am not referring to any special person here, though this is just another great opportunity to point out what an excellent blog Axel H. Horns is running.
That, however, would be wrong in two different ways.
One: It would be too simple an approach. While it might be possible, even plausible, that a patent attorney could think about the effect of his positions on the amount of his business, it won't do to disqualify everything they say in wholesale without even reading. In a democracy, everybody has a voice. While it won't do to have patent policy set only by those with a personal financial interest in its expansion, it also won't do to exclude those most experienced and most directly affected by patent policy from its discussion.
Two: Actually, some patent attorneys (Axel H. Horns being one of them) understand that the debate on software patents has the potential to develop into "the big threat to come" . Expanding the limits of patentability might bring some short term additional business to patent attorneys. But that comes at a cost of added cricism and more potential for "earthquakes".
Therefore, it would be premature to assume that unlimited patent inflation is in the business interest of patent attorneys. They want more business. But they also need stability. "Patent explosion" won't help that goal.
Which in turn means that it would be premature for our side to assume that all patent attorneys only compete on finding the best way to confuse the issues in order to feed their own personal bottom line.
That, of course, doesn't exclude that some patent attorneys might actually advocate blowing up all limits of patentability in order to make an extra buck.
Which would be kind of ironic, since the ultimate result of that would be to blow up all legitimacy of and support for the patent system as such in the process.
Posted by Karl-Friedrich Lenz at April 14, 2004 01:58 PM | TrackBack