Search results

Many European-level networks and regulatory constellations in different sectors (e.g., energy, telecommunications) without clear anchorage into the European Union (EU) institutional landscape have been subject to increasing efforts by the EU institutions to tie them closer to the EU. They are serving increasingly as platforms for preparing EU policy or for implementing EU decisions, which may result in closer institutional bonds with the EU. This chapter aims at examining the differences and similarities between the process towards more EU-integration in two different domains (i.e., telecommunications and patents) and regulatory constellations (i.e., supranational and intergovernmental).

The chapter analyzes the evolution in the European telecommunication sector and the European Patent System and juxtaposes this analysis with the literature on institutionalization, Europeanization of regulatory network-organizations, and multilevel governance (MLG). It focuses on the role of the European Commission and the interaction with the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) and networks within the institutional framework.

Irrespective of the particular regime (intergovernmental/supranational) in a certain domain or sector, a common trend of closer coordination and integration prompted by the Commission is taking place, which triggers a certain resistance by the national bodies regulating that domain. As long as a specific competence is considered instrumental in the creation of the single market, the Commission has strong incentives to strengthen its influence in this field, even if those competences have been regulated through an independent intergovernmental regime.

The dynamic described in this chapter allows us to reflect upon the MLG conception as developed by Marks and Hooghe (2004), which distinguish between two types of MLG. Type I MLG refers to different levels of governments, more specifically to the spread of power along different governmental levels and the interactions between them. Type II MLG refers to jurisdictions that are both task-specific and based on membership that can intersect with each other. They respond to particular problems in specific policy fields (Marks & Hooghe, 2004). Our analysis shows that the increase in coordination and integration are the outcome of both MLG Type II processes (coordination between two issue-specific bodies) and of MLG Type I processes (tensions between two governmental levels). Furthermore, the negotiation dynamics regarding this increased coordination and integration reveal that the tensions typical of MLG Type I took place as a consequence of the increased coordination between Type II bodies. Put differently, multi-level coordination and integration mechanisms in the EU can be seen as both Type I and Type II processes. They combine features of both categories and reveal that their Type I and Type II features are interdependent.

The analysis in this chapter shows a need for further strengthening the MLG Type I and II conceptual framework by balancing the analytical distinction between the two types with developments about how Type I and Type II are often entangled and intertwined with each other rather than separated realities.

The chapter describes and compares the dynamics in the European telecommunications sector and the European patent system with interesting observations for NRAs and the European Commission with respect to coordination and integration.

The original nature of the current chapter relates to the two selected areas and the addition to the literature on MLG.

First, with respect to the areas investigated the dynamics of the European telecommunications sector have been analyzed also by other authors, but the European patent system is an area which is relatively unexplored in terms of governance research. The combination of the two sectors with a detailed analysis of similarities and differences is highly original and generates interesting lessons with respect to coordination and integration in supranational and intergovernmental regimes.

Second, Marks and Hooghe (2004) distinguish between the two types of MLG as if they are two different constructs that are not related to each other. Our cases and argument cover both types of MLG and show the interconnection between the dynamics taking place in the two types of MLG.

Despite their daunting reputation, patent documents, or copies of them, are in fact remarkably easy to acquire. Although some million patent specifications are published each year for approximately half that number of new inventions, confusion is in general avoided because of the influence of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which enables the 40 patent offices to work together in the cause of universal availability, to standardize their documents and to designate them uniquely. The somewhat complicated publication sequence and numbering systems of patents, both in the UK and overseas, are explained. There are many sources of supply for published patent specifications, both national and international, public and private sector, to meet varying needs, whether document or information‐centred. Amongst these are the patent offices (both national and international), regional sub‐offices, national technical libraries, depository centres and various private sector services. Finally, a reminder is given that the Science Reference and Information Service is itself a specialist both in the supply of patent documents and in information about them.

I welcome this opportunity of speaking to you on the subject of patents. I do not suppose that I have any need, before this audience, to counter the view of patents, which is held in certain quarters, that inventions are crazy and that patent specifications are objects of mere curiosity. It may well be, however, that some of you regard the territory of patents as if you were confronted by that all too familiar warning ‘Trespassers will be prosecuted’. I should therefore like to stress at the very beginning that the Patent System works not only for the benefit of the inventor but also for the benefit of the public in general and for the benefit of industry in particular. The intention of the patent system is perhaps very well expressed in the constitution of the United States, where under Article I, Section 8, Congress is empowered ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries’.

The object of this talk is to let you know what services are offered by the Patent Office to help people get at the technical information contained in patents. Since these services largely arise from the official work performed in the Patent Office, it would seem logical to say something about this work: this I also intend to do. Finally, I shall be giving some background detail on current activities in the Patent Office concerned with information storage and retrieval as well as some thoughts on one or two possibilities for the future. In this way I hope to up‐date the last address made to Aslib by a Patent Office speaker.

Few areas of reference services seem to be as shrouded in fearful mystery as those of patent searching. For many librarians, the very word “patent” conjures up images of strange individuals with equally strange ideas. Some think of endless tedium in selecting from among incomprehensible classifications leading to huge lists of meaningless numbers. Still others are repelled by the notion that many inventors and patent searchers are seeking assistance with what may be expensive legal matters.

The European patent information policy of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) derives from a 1988 decision of the Administrative Council of the EPO. The intent of the policy is to improve access to patent information for European users, to encourage innovation and to strengthen Europe's position on technical information exchange with Japan and the USA. The EPO markets a number of data products, such as CD‐ROM and online databases, including the services of INPADOC, which was integrated with the EPO in 1990. These data are available at cost to non‐commercial organisations and at market rates for commercial use. The information is also disseminated through European national patent offices, with whom the EPO maintains a close cooperation.

This chapter focuses upon two types of interaction. One is the interaction between departments within the Danish Trademark and Patent Office (DKPTO). Additionally, the interaction between the DKPTO and firms is analysed. The chapter discusses in what ways an institution like a national patent office is important for product innovation, not just by providing an appropriability system for product innovations in firms, but additionally by improving the long-run capabilities of both firms and the DKPTO itself. The research builds upon interviews in the DKPTO, case stories from firms and of patent granting procedures.

With respect to internal competencies, it is found that no efforts were carried out to create environments for learning between the departments in line with the “learning organizations” described in earlier chapters. However, taking the tasks of the departments into account, the need for such efforts was not obvious. Links to external organizations are not only confined to industrial firms. Many firms, especially the large firms, would not mind if the tasks of the national patent system were moved to the EPO-level. On the other hand, in particular, small, new firms may feel more confident with a national patent office.

To keep this paper within measurable compass, I propose not to discuss the history of British Patent Law except to point out that the 1624 Statute of King James, which covered the original law of patents in a single clause, has been replaced in the 1949 Act by 103 clauses followed by three formidable schedules, this being the 32nd Patents Act to be placed upon the Statute Book.

Discusses the basic concepts of intellectual property, particularly as applied to patents; explains the monopoly granted to inventors in return for disclosing details of their inventions in applications for patent specifications. Expands on the problems such a system presents to the inventor, with comments on decisions the inventor must take on whether to patent his invention, and if so, where, and how the procedures should be approached. Presents a brief history of patents, with an explanation of what can and what cannot be patented under the Patents Act 1977. Notes arrangements for protection outside the UK ‐ through the European Patent Office, and other countries of the world. Discusses the main factors which affect the information value of patents, and comments on the major patent information tools ‐ printed, CD‐ROM and databases. Concludes with a brief discussion on the growing impact of the Internet and the World Wide Web, suggesting that such developments might increase the use of the valuable information contained in patent documentation.

Of significance for patents information during the past decade or so have been the major changes in patents legislation, improvements to the publications of the principal patenting systems, and the transforming effects of computerized databases. The review covers these changes and outlines the current publication procedures of the European Patent Convention, Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the major national systems. The importance of the patent specification as a source of information, and developments during this period in its construction and bibliographic data are explained. Official and non‐official publications associated with the specification are covered. Particular emphasis is given to computer databases covering patents, since they now form a powerful, numerous and growing means of searching specifications in the majority of subject fields. Reference is made to efforts to increase general awareness of the value of patents as information and to improve their availability by schemes such as the UK's Patents Information Network.