Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: patent office closure
Message-ID: <656@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 18:18:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.656
Posted: Sat Jun  1 18:18:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 18:36:52 EDT
References: <1926@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Distribution: can
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 54
Summary: No sense at all.


     As a lawyer with a fair knowledge of US and Canadian Intellectual
and Industrial Property laws (Copyrights, Patents, Trade Marks and Trade
Secrets), it makes very little sense to me at all.  The most I can say
is that the Tories probably picked it because it's an obscure area of law
that not many people know enough about to say something intelligent.  As
such, they probably figured a minimum reprisal for their acts.
 
     Another possible reason was that it gave them a chance to kick out
some Liberal appointed civil servants.
 
     As a legal matter, it's my opinion that it's a stupid move.  I can't
even try to be polite about it.  The US patent law and copyright law are
separated by the US constitution.  I've hoped for some time now that we,
in Canada could create a truly unified I & IP law which would end the
problems associated with the current laws.  If we accept the US patent
registrations as fixing our own laws, then we will be forever tied to
their deficiencies.  As computer people I think everybody 'here' should
be screaming murder.  The US patent law has difficulties protecting software.
The US Copyright law has been the main area of protection there.  Here,
we are moving in somewhat the same direction, but the differences, such
as a complete lack of a true Industrial Design statute in the US, should
not be overlooked.  Do most of the people 'here' know how hard it is to
register a patent in Canada or the US?  If software is made subject ot
patent law (as I said, it partly is already) as it currently stands, do
you realize what the implications are?  Say the first word processor
package was allowed a patent.  The implication would be that even if you
wrote *your own* package you'd be violating an existing patent!  It
wouldn't even matter if it was substantially different in approach, if
the patent was granted for a fairly general description of what a word
processor does.  Is that what you want to see?
 
     Patent law is not really compatible with current economic and
scientific realities.  Here in Canada we *can* produce a better legal
system.  In the US they may be able to also, but don't expect it.  The
US Constitution is hard to change (for proof of that do a bit of research
on what the Women's movement went through for their unsuccessful attempt
to pass ERA).
 
     There is also the cost of obtaining a patent in the US and enforcing
it here in Canada.  Such a situation will only be good for very large
(read that 'probably more expensive') law firms.  If I were a Canadian
Patent agent, I would *not* be qualified to practice in the US.  You'd
have to hire one in the US, or go to a firm with contacts or practitioners
qualified to practice in the US.  You can bet that less than 1/10th of
the current patent firms will be able to do this.  What will it cost you
to hire a good US patent agent?  I don't know for sure, but studies have
shown that Canadian lawyers make less than US lawyers on average, and I
doubt whether the patent field will prove different.  (If they make less,
then they are probably charging less, but that's not an absolute...).

-- 
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura