Apple has been granted a patent for setting parental controls on mobile payment apps.
The US Patent and Trademark Office published the approved patent on Tuesday, adding fuel to rumours that Apple plans to launch a mobile payment service.
According to the patent's description, "the financial transaction rules may be based upon transaction amounts, aggregate spending amounts over a period, merchant categories, specific merchants, geographic locations, or the like".
The patent is titled "Parental controls", and its text largely describes a scenario where a parent sets up a prepaid subsidiary account for their child. However, it also notes that the functionality could be used by an employer who wants to set rules for an employee's handset-based payment account.
Pictures in the patent show an application called E-Wallet, although many commentators have pointed out that any Apple mobile payment service is more likely to start with the standard 'i'.
"Apple's patent reviews credit card transaction rules and shows us that the credit card companies will be sending statements directly to your iTunes account," PatentlyApple noted. "The iWallet project just became a little more real today."
There have been reports for more than a year suggesting that Apple was about to launch a mobile payments system using near-field communication (NFC) technology, but it has not yet come to pass.
The company is set to launch a new iPad later on Wednesday, and it remains to be seen whether that will incorporate NFC or not.
During the 3rd Peoples Health Assembly, to be hosted in Cape Town from 6 Р11 July, the Treatment Action Campaign and M̩decins Sans Fronti̬res will look at the use of TRIPS flexibilities in key developing countries РSouth Africa, India and Brazil.
As members of the World Trade Organisation, South Africa, India and Brazil are all required to provide protection of intellectual property in line with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). However, each country has flexibility under TRIPS to adopt provisions in their national law in order to balance the protection of health with the protection of intellectual property.
This workshop will compare how each country has interpreted TRIPS in its national legislation and how this has impacted on health and medicine access. Some of the features of each country’s patent laws that will be examined include: standards of patentability; examination and opposition procedures; and compulsory licensing provisions.
Additionally, we will look at the ongoing pressure faced by these countries not to use TRIPS flexibilities and how activists have fought back and, in some cases, won provisions in their law to protect health. The workshop will look at ongoing efforts of activists in these countries to improve medicine access by fully utilising flexibilities and the possibility for international collaboration and pressure.
You may also be interested in :
Viewed from the angle of innovation policy, patents aim to foster innovation in the private sector
by allowing inventors to profit from their inventions. The positive effect of patents on innovation as incentive mechanisms has been traditionally contrasted with their negative effect on competition and technology diffusion. Patents have long been considered to represent a trade-off between incentives to innovate on one hand, and competition in the market and diffusion of technology on the other.
However, recent evolutions in science and technology and patent policy and progress in the economic analysis of patents have nuanced this view: patents can hamper innovation under certain conditions and encourage diffusion under others. The impact of patents on innovation and economic performance is complex, and fine tuning of patent design is crucial if they are to become an effective policy instrument.
Empirical evidence tends to support the effectiveness of patents in encouraging innovation,
subject to some cross-industry variation. In a series of surveys conducted in the United States, Europe and Japan in the mid-1980s and 1990s, respondent companies reported patents as being extremely important in protecting their competitive advantage in a few industries, notably biotechnology, drugs, chemicals and, to a certain extent, machinery and computers. Companies in other industries reported that patents play a secondary, if not negligible, role as a means of protection for their inventions, as they tend to rely more on alternative means such as secrecy, market lead, advance on the learning curve, technological complexity and control of complementary assets (Levin, Klevorick, Nelson and Winter, 1987; Cohen, Nelson and Walsh, 2000).
However, patent protection may also hamper further innovation, especially when it limits access
to essential knowledge, as may be the case in emerging technological areas when innovation has a
marked cumulative character and patents protect foundational inventions. In this context, too broad a protection on basic inventions can discourage follow-on inventors if the holder of a patent for an essential technology refuses access to others under reasonable conditions. This concern has often been raised for new technologies, most recently for genetic inventions (Bar-Shalom and Cook-Deegan, 2002; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002; OECD, 2003a) and software (Bessen and Maskin, 2000; Bessen and Hunt, 2003).
In addition, as has long been recognised, the main drawback of patents is their negative effect on
diffusion and competition. As patents are an exclusive right that creates a temporary monopoly, the patent holder can set a market price higher than the competitive price and limit the total volume of sales. This negative impact on competition could be magnified as patent holders try to strengthen their position in negotiations with other firms, in an attempt to block access by competitors to a key technology, or inversely, to avoid being blocked by them (Shapiro, 2002). Such strategic patenting seems to have developed over the past 15 years, notably in the electronics industry (Hall and Ziedonis, 2001).
Nevertheless, patents can also have a positive impact on competition when they enhance market
entry and firm creation. Not only is there evidence of small companies being able to assert their right in front of larger ones thanks to their patent portfolio, but patents may also be a decisive condition for entrepreneurs to obtain funds from venture capitalists (Gans, Hsu and Stern, 2002). Moreover, patents may enhance technology diffusion. Patenting means disclosing inventions which might otherwise be kept secret. Industrial surveys show that the reluctance of firms to patent their inventions is primarily due to the fear of providing information to competitors. This has been confirmed in the OECD/BIAC survey on the use and perception of patents in the business community, sent to firms in OECD countries in 2003 and in which respondents indicated their intensive use of patents as a source of information (Box 2; Sheehan, Guellec and Martinez, 2003). Patents also facilitate transactions in markets for technology: they can be bought and sold as property titles or, more frequently, be subject to licensing agreements which allow the licensee to use the patented invention in return for payment of a fee or royalty (Arora, Fosfuri and Gambardella, 2001; Vonortas, 2003). Finally, enhancing technology diffusion has been the goal put forward by governments to encourage universities to patent their inventions, with the objective of licensing them to businesses that will further develop and commercialise them (OECD, 2003b).
In summary, the traditional view of patents as a compromise between incentives to innovate and barriers to technology diffusion, if not incorrect, presents a rather partial picture, as patents can either encourage or deter innovation and diffusion, depending on certain conditions. In fact, the effect of patents on innovation and diffusion depends on particular features of the patent regime. Patent subject matter, patenting requirements and patent breadth are three basic tools for policy makers involved in the design of patent regimes that could be used to enhance both innovation and diffusion (Encaoua, Guellec and Martinez, 2003):
• Patent subject matter is the domain of knowledge that can be patented, if the patenting criteria
of novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness are also met. For instance, scientific discoveries
and abstract ideas are generally excluded. Its definition must be based on a careful
examination of when it is efficient for society to offer patent protection in addition to other
legal or market-based means of protection.
• Patenting requirement is the height of the inventive step required for a patent application to be
granted. It is understood as the extent of the contribution made by an invention to the state of
the art in a particular technology field. The higher that contribution, the more selective the
process, thus the lower the number of patents granted. The lower it is, the larger the likelihood
of finding many inventions with no significant social value. Conversely, too high a requirement
would discourage innovations which, while not being radical, are still necessary for
technological breakthrough to translate into actual products and processes.
• The breadth of a patent is the extent of protection granted to patent holders against imitators
and follow-on inventors. Not only do patentees obtain exclusive rights on their own invention
but also on other inventions which are deemed “functionally equivalent”, and to a certain
extent on improvements of their inventions. Patents that are too broad allow their holders to
“pre-empt the future”, while patents that are too narrow discourage research that feeds into
follow-on inventions. Other policy or legal aspects have an impact on the patent system, including the amount of damages attributed by courts in case of infringement, the conditions for exemptions for research use, etc. Taken together, these aspects determine the strength of patents. Overall, excessively weak and narrow patents might deter business investment in R&D, as it becomes too easy for an imitator to undercut the inventor’s market price. Weak and narrow patents may also encourage secrecy at the expense of publicity, and harm markets for technology, hence hindering diffusion of technology. Conversely, excessively strong and broad patents may open the door to undesired strategic behaviour by patent holders, who may use their titles to appropriate revenue from existing inventions marketed by other companies. For instance, a broad patent on a basic invention with no substitutes may be equivalent to having an exclusive right of exploitation over an essential facility, allowing its holder to bar follow-on inventors who would be willing to invest in R&D to create socially useful applications.
By carefully balancing these multiple instruments, policy makers can design patent regimes that are favourable to both innovation and diffusion.
Posted online by : copyright india
by allowing inventors to profit from their inventions. The positive effect of patents on innovation as incentive mechanisms has been traditionally contrasted with their negative effect on competition and technology diffusion. Patents have long been considered to represent a trade-off between incentives to innovate on one hand, and competition in the market and diffusion of technology on the other.
However, recent evolutions in science and technology and patent policy and progress in the economic analysis of patents have nuanced this view: patents can hamper innovation under certain conditions and encourage diffusion under others. The impact of patents on innovation and economic performance is complex, and fine tuning of patent design is crucial if they are to become an effective policy instrument.
Empirical evidence tends to support the effectiveness of patents in encouraging innovation,
subject to some cross-industry variation. In a series of surveys conducted in the United States, Europe and Japan in the mid-1980s and 1990s, respondent companies reported patents as being extremely important in protecting their competitive advantage in a few industries, notably biotechnology, drugs, chemicals and, to a certain extent, machinery and computers. Companies in other industries reported that patents play a secondary, if not negligible, role as a means of protection for their inventions, as they tend to rely more on alternative means such as secrecy, market lead, advance on the learning curve, technological complexity and control of complementary assets (Levin, Klevorick, Nelson and Winter, 1987; Cohen, Nelson and Walsh, 2000).
However, patent protection may also hamper further innovation, especially when it limits access
to essential knowledge, as may be the case in emerging technological areas when innovation has a
marked cumulative character and patents protect foundational inventions. In this context, too broad a protection on basic inventions can discourage follow-on inventors if the holder of a patent for an essential technology refuses access to others under reasonable conditions. This concern has often been raised for new technologies, most recently for genetic inventions (Bar-Shalom and Cook-Deegan, 2002; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002; OECD, 2003a) and software (Bessen and Maskin, 2000; Bessen and Hunt, 2003).
In addition, as has long been recognised, the main drawback of patents is their negative effect on
diffusion and competition. As patents are an exclusive right that creates a temporary monopoly, the patent holder can set a market price higher than the competitive price and limit the total volume of sales. This negative impact on competition could be magnified as patent holders try to strengthen their position in negotiations with other firms, in an attempt to block access by competitors to a key technology, or inversely, to avoid being blocked by them (Shapiro, 2002). Such strategic patenting seems to have developed over the past 15 years, notably in the electronics industry (Hall and Ziedonis, 2001).
Nevertheless, patents can also have a positive impact on competition when they enhance market
entry and firm creation. Not only is there evidence of small companies being able to assert their right in front of larger ones thanks to their patent portfolio, but patents may also be a decisive condition for entrepreneurs to obtain funds from venture capitalists (Gans, Hsu and Stern, 2002). Moreover, patents may enhance technology diffusion. Patenting means disclosing inventions which might otherwise be kept secret. Industrial surveys show that the reluctance of firms to patent their inventions is primarily due to the fear of providing information to competitors. This has been confirmed in the OECD/BIAC survey on the use and perception of patents in the business community, sent to firms in OECD countries in 2003 and in which respondents indicated their intensive use of patents as a source of information (Box 2; Sheehan, Guellec and Martinez, 2003). Patents also facilitate transactions in markets for technology: they can be bought and sold as property titles or, more frequently, be subject to licensing agreements which allow the licensee to use the patented invention in return for payment of a fee or royalty (Arora, Fosfuri and Gambardella, 2001; Vonortas, 2003). Finally, enhancing technology diffusion has been the goal put forward by governments to encourage universities to patent their inventions, with the objective of licensing them to businesses that will further develop and commercialise them (OECD, 2003b).
In summary, the traditional view of patents as a compromise between incentives to innovate and barriers to technology diffusion, if not incorrect, presents a rather partial picture, as patents can either encourage or deter innovation and diffusion, depending on certain conditions. In fact, the effect of patents on innovation and diffusion depends on particular features of the patent regime. Patent subject matter, patenting requirements and patent breadth are three basic tools for policy makers involved in the design of patent regimes that could be used to enhance both innovation and diffusion (Encaoua, Guellec and Martinez, 2003):
• Patent subject matter is the domain of knowledge that can be patented, if the patenting criteria
of novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness are also met. For instance, scientific discoveries
and abstract ideas are generally excluded. Its definition must be based on a careful
examination of when it is efficient for society to offer patent protection in addition to other
legal or market-based means of protection.
• Patenting requirement is the height of the inventive step required for a patent application to be
granted. It is understood as the extent of the contribution made by an invention to the state of
the art in a particular technology field. The higher that contribution, the more selective the
process, thus the lower the number of patents granted. The lower it is, the larger the likelihood
of finding many inventions with no significant social value. Conversely, too high a requirement
would discourage innovations which, while not being radical, are still necessary for
technological breakthrough to translate into actual products and processes.
• The breadth of a patent is the extent of protection granted to patent holders against imitators
and follow-on inventors. Not only do patentees obtain exclusive rights on their own invention
but also on other inventions which are deemed “functionally equivalent”, and to a certain
extent on improvements of their inventions. Patents that are too broad allow their holders to
“pre-empt the future”, while patents that are too narrow discourage research that feeds into
follow-on inventions. Other policy or legal aspects have an impact on the patent system, including the amount of damages attributed by courts in case of infringement, the conditions for exemptions for research use, etc. Taken together, these aspects determine the strength of patents. Overall, excessively weak and narrow patents might deter business investment in R&D, as it becomes too easy for an imitator to undercut the inventor’s market price. Weak and narrow patents may also encourage secrecy at the expense of publicity, and harm markets for technology, hence hindering diffusion of technology. Conversely, excessively strong and broad patents may open the door to undesired strategic behaviour by patent holders, who may use their titles to appropriate revenue from existing inventions marketed by other companies. For instance, a broad patent on a basic invention with no substitutes may be equivalent to having an exclusive right of exploitation over an essential facility, allowing its holder to bar follow-on inventors who would be willing to invest in R&D to create socially useful applications.
By carefully balancing these multiple instruments, policy makers can design patent regimes that are favourable to both innovation and diffusion.
Posted online by : copyright india
An invention patent is for a new technical solution for a product, a new method of producing or doing something, or an improvement on a product or method. Invention patents are most appropriate for inventions and product with a long life cycle, as an invention patent can last for up to 20 years if renewal fees are paid. It can take from three to five years from filing the application for the patent to be granted. The process includes an in-depth official substantive examination of the invention.
1. Advantage
· Longest period of protection
· Easier to enforce compared to other forms of protection since it will have passed through substantive examination
1. Disadvantage
· Long period to be granted
· Higher official application fees compared to utility model or design patents; the basic official application fee is RMB 950 and you must also pay the substantive examination fee of RMB 2,500
Given the length of time it takes to be granted an invention patent, one strategy to protect your invention during the substantive examination period is to apply for a utility model patent at the same time, as a utility model patent is typically granted within one year. Once your invention patent is going to be granted, however, you must drop your utility model patent.
KEY CRITERIA
1. Novelty requirement: To obtain an invention patent, the invention must not have been previously disclosed in a publication or known to the public anywhere in the world. As a general rule, if you sell products incorporating the invention before applying for a patent, the novelty of the patent will be destroyed.
2. Level of inventiveness: This requirement refers to the level of innovation for the invention. Invention patents require a relatively higher level of inventiveness.
A utility model patent is granted for new practical, technical solutions relating to the shape, structure, or their combination, of a product that is practical. Utility models are generally suitable for inventions that do not reach the same level of inventiveness as invention patents. It takes about one year to be granted and the maximum term of protection is ten years if renewal fees are paid.
Advantages
1. Only takes approximately one year to be granted
2. Lower application fee of RMB 500 compared to the invention patent
Disadvantages
1. Lack of a substantive examination, which makes it easier for an alleged infringer to file an invalidation request against your patent
KEY CRITERIA
1. Practical solution: Inventions eligible for a utility model patent are more closely related to how practical it is and to improving the functionality of an existing product rather than a brand new solution.
2. Lower level of inventiveness: If your invention has a lower level of inventiveness or have a relatively shorter life span, one strategy may be to apply for a utility model patent rather than an invention patent.
A design patent protects the design of a product, for example, the shape or pattern of the product, or the combination of shape, colour or pattern. The design must have an aesthetic value and industrial use. It takes about one year to be granted and the term of protection is ten years if renewal fees are paid. The protection is not for the functionality of the product.
The colour of a product alone is not patentable unless the change of colour can be regarded as a pattern. The colour criterion does not include the natural colour of the raw material of the product. It is recommended that your design includes a combination of colours, shape and/or pattern to hinder the design patent from being easily invalidated after it is granted.
Advantage
1. Only takes approximately a year to be granted
2. Lower application fee of RMB 500 compared to the invention patent
Disadvantage
1. Lack of substantive examination, which can make it easy for imitators to apply for their own design patent based on your design
KEY CRITERIA
1. Overall look: The protection of a design patent strictly covers the distinguishing overall look of the product. It is unrelated to technical, functional or inventive aspects of the product.
2. Inventiveness: The design of a design patent should be obviously distinguished from any prior design or combination of the features of the prior designs.
3. Conflict of prior rights: A design patent must not conflict with prior rights such as copyright or trademark right obtained by a third party.
You may also be interested in :
If you feel the need to talk to someone
before you apply, such as a potential
business partner, you should ask them
to sign a confidentiality agreement
before you talk to them. This means
they have to treat what you tell them in
confidence. A solicitor or patent attorney
can prepare this type of agreement for
you.
Any conversation you have with patent
attorneys, solicitors or our staff is
confidential, so anything you say will
not count as revealing your invention
early.
During the application process, you
may be contacted by an invention
promotion company. If you are, be very
careful what you agree to.
The basis of a UK patent is a legal
document called a ‘specification’. Its
content decides not only whether a
patent can be granted, but also exactly
what the rights of any patent granted
cover.
You can prepare a specification and
apply for a patent yourself, but if you do
not know a lot about patent issues, you
should use a chartered patent attorney
or other professional advisor with
the skills needed to assess whether
your idea is appropriate for patent
protection, and who can prepare an
application for you. Patent attorneys
are legally qualified and independently
regulated, and some will give you initial
advice free of charge. So, make sure
you are well prepared before any initial
consultation. There are other patent
advisors, consultants and inventorsupport organisations who may also be
able to help or advise you.
We are not allowed to recommend
any particular patent attorney or
other adviser. However, a list of
patent attorneys is available from the
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
most classified directories
list local patent attorneys.
Some invention promotion firms may offer
you free information on how to patent and
market your invention.
Some unreliable firms promise to
evaluate your invention for a fee of a few
hundred pounds, then tell you that your
invention has great market potential.
They may offer to promote your invention
to manufacturers if you pay a fee of
several thousand pounds up front. Once
you have paid up, they may do little or
nothing for you.
Reputable companies will carry out the
research and provide a genuine market
evaluation giving you an honest review
of your invention’s potential. They don’t
use bogus research and mass-produced
positive reports, or charge large fees
up front, as some unreliable companies
do. They will recommend what research
should be carried out to evaluate your
invention and, if the outcome is positive,
how they would market it. They will give
you an estimated breakdown of what the
costs will be at each stage of the process
and the level of risk involved.
The steps below cover a typical single UK patent application, filed on or after 1st January 2005. They do not cover more complicated variations.
Step 1
You prepare a ‘patent application’ which includes:
• a written ‘description’ of your invention (allowing others to see how it works and how it could be made); ‘drawings’ (to illUStrate your description);
• ‘claims’ (precise legal statements in the form of single sentences that define your invention by setting
out its distinctive technical features); and
• an ‘abstract’ (a summary that includes all the important technical aspects of your invention).
Step 2
You fill in and file form 1 ‘Request for grant of a patent’ with US, together with your patent application.
(Also, if you or anyone else applying are not the inventor, you will need to fill in form 7 – ‘Statement of
inventorship and of right to grant of a patent’ – and tell US why you have the right to be granted a patent. This form can be filed up to 16 months after your ‘filing date’ or priority date, if there
is one.)
Step 3
We respond by issuing a filing receipt which includes an application number and confirms the ‘filing date’ of your application.
Step 4
You fill in and file form 9A with US, together with the ‘a search’. You mUSt do this by a given date – USually within 12 months of your filing date – to avoid your application being terminated. You also need to pay the application fee by the given date.
If your application includes a declaration of priority, the deadline for filing form 9A is 2 months from your filing date or 12 months from your priority date, whichever is later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)