Lying Hungarian government causes street riots
Hungarian police have used tear gas and water cannon to quell violent overnight protests in Budapest after citizens found out that their government was lying to them.
In other news, the UK government made it clear that our IP system is perfectly “fair” and “balanced”.
In yet more news, the truth sneaks out…Lord Sainsbury – grocer and Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation
“The allocation of IP is both democratic and fair. Rights are not based on the size of the company or the popularity of an individual but on the quality of the invention or in the case of copyright, the creative input without prejudice to the perceived quality. So IP rewards an inventor in his garage or the composer in his bedroom as much as a big pharmaceutical company or a pop superstar. They are awarded the same rights and the same conditions and privileges.”
Sources: Innovating for Success (Lord Sainsbury) – IPPR and Mandy HabermanMandy Haberman – successful inventor and member of the government’s Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (IPAC).
“I believe that the government, in actively encouraging people to patent their ideas and start their own businesses, is being irresponsible. It seems to me like encouraging people to jump off the edge of a cliff without a parachute. Either the system needs to be changed or there needs to be a support system to help independent inventors stand up to infringers without risking their homes and personal savings. It should not have to be a David and Goliath scenario where one side is comfortable in the knowledge that it holds all the power and financial resources.”
posted by Deep Thunk @ 20:58
2 Comments:
I don't see the two quotes being at all contradictory. Allocation of IP rights is as fair as can be, provided one has a minimum amount of money required to get the rights (presuming we are talking about patents). Where sole inventors often fall down (and I am not accusing Ms Haberman of this) is not realising that money has to be expended up front in order to get the best possible scope of protection. A few thousand spent on a good quality patent application will be money well spent should the invention be commercially valuable. Remember that the vast majority of granted patents are not litigated, either because they are not sufficiently commercially valuable (i.e. nobody cares) or because they are well drafted and hard to overcome.
The problem that Ms Haberman refers to is more to do with the ridiculously high cost of legal proceedings in this country. This is where the David v Goliath argument is more appropriate. Lord Sainsbury would be well advised to think about this a bit more, perhaps with an eye to how litigation happens in Germany (much quicker and cheaper than over here).
Hi WP,
Unusually, as I’m sure you’ll agree, we seem to differ. We seem to differ as to whether the quotes are in any way compatible with a common view of the “fairness” of the IP system in the UK.
On the one hand, we have the government’s (corporate) promulgating of industry’s paid-for belching, and on the other we have the very real experience of a successful inventor and member of IPAC.
Umm…difficult one.
I guess I’ll have to rely on my own experiences to make a decision.
Sorry, the system stinks.
DT
Post a Comment
<< Home