The concept of a patent pool is however not new in the world.  The first example of a patent pool date back to 1856 where sewing machine manufacturers, Grover, Baker, Singer, Wheeler and Wilson had patents and were in the process of instituting patent infringement actions against each other.  This obviously led to the danger that profits can be diluted because of legal fees.

The parties then entered into cross-licensing agreements to make technology available to each other whilst limiting cross-licensing fees and thereby to lower the costs of products to the consumer.

Another example of a patent pool dates back to 1917 when patent held by the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company hampered the development of new airplanes that were needed for World War I.  The solution was that the parties “pooled patents” by entering into cross-licensing agreements which allowed the relevant parties to use each other technologies whilst earning a realistic income from their patents.

In essence the basis of a patent pool is a cross licensing arrangement, to the benefit of the patent contributors and administered by an independent administrator.

However, in most instances patent pools are complex arrangements, which need to be set up by experienced practitioners in order to achieve their aims for the benefit of the contributors, and the end user, whilst avoiding anti-trust/price, fixing enquiries.

For more information on Patent Pools, Cross-Licensing, and Intellectual Partnering, you are welcome to contact Smit & Van Wyk, Inc.

Some of this information has been taken from Wikipedia, and for further reading, the following links make for interesting reading matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#The_patent_pool_solution

The basis of this viewpoint is that knowledgeable individuals contribute “free of charge” to provide products (software etc.) which is available to other contributors.  In exchange such individuals has access to the development of other contributors “free of charge”.  This development model is used to develop cutting edge technology in a rapid changing technological environment.

Opposed to the open source development model there is the “Legally protected” development model, which use legal tools to protect IP for the benefit of the individual or the institution.  The advantage of this system is that the individual or institution can recover their investment in research and development over a period of 20 years.  This model is used by pharmaceutical companies to develop new health solutions for the benefit of mankind, but with the knowledge that their (very costly) investment will be recovered in future.

These viewpoints are often presented as opposing viewpoints with proponents of each justifying the one against the other.  However it is a widely accepted fact that each of these models has its own benefits and their own drawbacks.

Smit & Van Wyk, Inc. with individuals coming from a background of high technology development, but being at the forefront of legal protection of our clients rights, have the view that these two diverse models can be combined into a new “Legally protected open source model” (LPOSM) to maximise the benefits of each model whilst minimising the disadvantages of each model.

The LPOSM model incorporate use of open source technologies as input to new development and making available new developments to the open source community where appropriate, but to incorporate certain technologies (normally not available in the open source market) into products by using patent pools and commercial agreements to access such technology whilst legally protecting certain core competencies.

Smit & Van Wyk, Inc. can be contacted for more information on open source development, the LPOSM model, and legal protection of IP rights.

Click here for more information regarding the LESI Conference 2010

When the parties could not agree on the name of the mediator, the Center submitted for consideration of the parties a list of five possible candidates, meeting criteria set forth by the disputants in their mediation agreement. After some discussion, the parties agreed on one of the nominees proposed by the Center, an American intellectual property lawyer with considerable mediation experience.

The mediator conducted meetings with the parties in the United States. As a direct consequence of the facilitative role played by the mediator in the course of the case, the parties settled their dispute six months after the commencement of the mediation. – WIPO

Source code
On-screen lay-out
Character or animation that is part of a specific program

The above are the broad categories. The South African software copyright protection however, is not adequate to deal with the expansion in the industry. The need for patenting rights regarding certain aspects of software programs is on the rise. The European law has been well developed regarding patenting rights for computer programs and provides clear guidelines as to the technical characteristics required for patentability of a computer program. Since we are not there yet, and have no court history of interpretation regarding patentability of computer programs in South Africa, we still have to settle for the allowable software copyright protection that exists.

When the mark does not fall within the allowable definition range
When it is not able to distinguish goods or services
If the mark has become customary for goods or services
When there is no clear bona fide purpose for the usage of the mark
Should the mark be a copy or imitation of another registered mark for goods
If it indicates patronage
If such a registration will limit the growth of a particular industry
Should the trademark applications indicate deceptive marks
Should it be likely to cause confusion
Any mark similar to one already in use.

Contact us to help you with the procedures regarding trademark applications and prevent lawsuits, objections, and wasting of money.