The idea of expanding the scope of the Eco-Patent Commons under the auspices of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development by creating a new system of technical disclosure publication including eco-friendly innovations not yet patented, which we blogged about here and here, has piqued more interest following the article by IP consultant Nancy Edwards Cronin in her Strategic Thinking column on Greenbiz.com.

On the Green Patent Blog, covering intellectual property issues in clean technology, patent attorney Eric Lane follows up that article with a post headlined "More on Gratis Greentech: A Proposal for Expanding the Eco-Patent Commons" where he writes:

Whether or not you agree with her argument about issued patents, her idea of adding invention disclosures to the Commons would almost certainly benefit the initiative and its participants by increasing the value and utility of the available green technology. Of course, no independent or targeted donations to the Commons would be necessary because enabled invention disclosures are by definition in the public domain and available to everyone. Instead, to make the technology available to greentech firms, it would just need to be made accessible via the Commons. Broadly, Cronin’s idea could be implemented in one of three ways. Either companies who publish environmentally-beneficial technology in these disclosures could provide the publication information or citations to the Commons, the Commons itself could monitor the disclosure publications, or the publications could alert the Commons of relevant published disclosures. However it’s done, I can’t argue with increasing green idea and technology sharing.

Defensive Publishing denotes the disclosure of an invention with the purpose of creating prior art, and thus to prevent the granting of a patent. Regarding a worldwide initiative to "promote the progress" in the interests of the global environment, as envisioned by the the Eco-Patent Commons--beyond patents--including innovation and inventions not before patented, one must consider the different effects of "prior art" in various patent jurisdictions around the world.

In a  recently published Working Paper titled "Alternatives to the Patent Arms Race: An Empirical Study of Defensive Publishing", Joachim Henkel and Stephanie Pangerl note the differences between the European Patent Convention and US patent law.

US patent law is somewhat more restrictive in its definition of state of the art by excluding from patentability only those inventions that were “known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent” (US Patent Act, Section 102a). Public use in Europe would thus not be sufficient to establish prior art in the US. In addition, use or description of the invention must have taken place before the invention by the applicant or, as Section 102.b specifies, one year or more before filing of the application. This “first-to-invent” rule has an ambiguous effect on the attractiveness of defensive publishing. On the one hand, a DP may not pre-empt a patent application if the latter is filed less than 12 months after the DP and if it claims an earlier date of invention. In such a case, a DP might even trigger a competitor’s patent application. On the other hand, a DP can help to establish priority for an inventor, who maintains the option to file for a patent within the following year.

Consistent with the objectives of the Eco-Patent Commons, any similar system of technical disclosure publication should go beyond existing defensive publishing strategies to include a legally binding waiver of any option to file for a patent within the year following such publication.

We'd propose a definitive publication system for technical disclosures of eco-friendly innovations that would effectively relinquish all rights of the publisher to apply for a patent of the invention disclosed, anywhere in the world, anytime in the future.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Peer-to-Patent project announced that expert, volunteer reviewers from the general public have cooperated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to identify “prior art” that has been used in Office actions to reject at least one claim in each of five applications.

The Peer-to-Patent project is an initiative of New York Law School in cooperation with the USPTO aimed at opening the patent examination process to public participation, and improving the quality of patents. Under the Peer-to-Patent pilot program, inventors agree to have their patent applications posted for up to four months on the www.peertopatent.org Web site. Expert volunteers from the public then discuss the applications and submit prior art they think might be relevant to determining if an invention is new and non-obvious, as the law requires.

The program’s first 19 patent applications—including applications from GE, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems Inc., all companies that volunteered to be part of this pilot—have been examined. For every 500 patent applications published in 2007, the USPTO received only one third-party prior art submission. In the Peer-to-Patent pilot, volunteer reviewers supplied nearly four prior art references for each pilot application - a trend which could significantly help the USPTO if Peer-to-Patent expands beyond a pilot phase.

So far, of the first 19 first office actions sent by the USPTO, five patent applications received non-final rejections that relied specifically upon prior art submitted through Peer-to-Patent. In these instances, submissions of prior art from the public enabled the USPTO to reject claims the examiners believe fail the novelty and non-obvious requirements that prohibit patents on inventions that have already been invented or would have been obvious. The USPTO response time on these office actions is notable. Because the USPTO agreed to examine patent applications in the pilot ahead of other applications, the time between application filing and the onset of examination shrank from four to two years.

USPTO’s Commissioner for Patents John Doll noted, “I hope other patent applicants look at the processing statistics from this pilot program and realize that Peer-to-Patent review might be a win-win situation for them. We are encouraged by the initial success of the pilot, and we believe it holds potential as a source of relevant prior art.”

In sending the program’s first non-final rejection, the USPTO examiner used prior art and commentary submitted by Steven Pearson, a senior software engineer at IBM, to reject claims of an HP application. The second non-final rejection relied upon prior art and commentary submitted by Rob Cameron, a Professor of Computer Science at Simon Fraser University, to reject claims of an IBM application. As a result, Pearson and Cameron have been awarded the title “prior artist” on the pilot Web site.

“It is a privilege to participate in this important project,” Steve Pearson, IBM software engineer, said. “I’m confident these early results will help validate that this community approach can have a meaningful impact on the examination process and the quality of patents. Hopefully this will encourage the participation of more domain experts in this pilot program.”

Professor Cameron believes “it is to everyone’s benefit—inventor, investor and the public at large—to make the best possible effort to ensure that issued patents are properly placed in the context of related prior art. In the future, I think that an open, mediated review process following the trail blazed by Peer-to-Patent should become an integral part of best practice patent examination.”

HP and IBM will now have the opportunity to respond to these first office actions and persuade the examiners their claims are new and non-obvious.

“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome,” Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property at IBM said. “Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identified so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”

Launched in June of last year, Peer-to-Patent opens the patent examination process for the first time, enabling the public to contribute prior art and commentary relevant to the examination of pending patent applications assigned in TC 2100 technologies with the goal of improving patent quality. On average, each posted application has garnered a community of 14 reviewers who have submitted five instances of prior art per application.

See also: www.peertopatent.org

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In her Strategic Thinking column on GreenBiz.com, Nancy Edwards Cronin recommends Growing the Eco-Patent Commons to Truly Promote Green Innovation. While lauding the objectives of this green initiative, she suggests that the Eco-Patent Commons itself is in need of some innovation if it truly hopes to accomplish its goal: sharing useful environmental technologies for "the greater good."

The problem is that the project includes only "patents" and not the undisclosed innovations and trade secrets within the intellectual property of companies and independent inventors that have not yet been patented. Many of those inventions might better be published now to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for a sustainable environment and ecology for the future.

To compensate for these drawbacks and make the Eco-Patent Commons as useful and powerful as it can be, the initiative requires expansion to offer truly recent inventions that have not spent years in the patent application process. This involves widening the scope of the initiative to include non-patented inventions that have yet to be marketed and made public.

One way to make these inventions available is through enabled invention disclosures. An enabled invention disclosure (also called “defensive publication” or “technical bulletin”) is a written description of an invention that ideally has the same degree of detail as an issued patent. Therefore a well-written invention disclosure provides sufficient information to the reader to understand and use the invention.

Many companies successfully use enabled invention disclosures as part of their intellectual property (IP) strategies. Companies frequently have inventions that they do not wish to patent because the patent process is so expensive, including invention development costs, legal preparation and patent prosecution fees. However, companies also wish to prevent competitors from patenting those same inventions.

By using enabled invention disclosures to publish the invention, companies accomplish both goals: they save the cost of patenting but they also establish a “prior art bar” to obtaining the patent and make it impossible for competitors to claim it the invention as their own. Several Web site forums exist for publishing inventions, including www.ip.com and www.researchdisclosure.com.

The Eco-Patent Commons should be expanded to include these enabled invention disclosures. Many inventions that companies deem non-strategic for patent application and instead decide to publish may be excellent candidates to be donated to the Eco-Patent Commons. These published inventions would be truly new, fresh and useful -- a good first step to creating the true springboard for green innovation that the Eco-Patent Commons was meant to be.

We couldn't agree more.

As indicated in our original post about the Eco-Patent Commons, IP.com would really like to contribute to this very worthwhile initiative by providing the publishing platform to broaden the scope of the project to include innovations and inventions useful to the environmental movement well beyond those patents that have been contributed by the project's founding companies, some of which are already using the IP.com Prior Art Database. We've got technologies available that could very quickly take this green initiative to a whole new level of global participation.

Let's discuss.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With the recent death of Arthur C. Clarke, one of the world's most prolific writers of science fiction, including the short story that inspired the screenplay for 2001: A Space Odyssey co-authored with Stanley Kubrick, we've seen numerous obituaries and memorials to his achievements as an inventor and futurist. We'd like to share this.

If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. -- Arthur C. Clarke, The Exploration of Space, 1951

Sir Arthur Clarke is credited with being the "godfather of the communications satellite" by many, including himself. "Although he was not the originator of the concept of geostationary satellites, one of his most important contributions may be his idea that they would be ideal telecommunications relays. He advanced this idea in a paper privately circulated among the core technical members of the BIS in 1945. The concept was published in Wireless World in October of that year." The Wireless World paper was written in late June and submitted to the RAF censor on July 7 and its title was changed from “The Future of World Communications” to “Extra-Terrestial Relays,” as noted in this powerpoint presentation. One slide in the presentation discloses this nugget of information that we found apropos our own blog about securing innovation.

Q: Why did Mr. Clarke not patent the communication satellite?

A: I have often been asked—usually pityingly--why I made no attempt to patent the communications satellite. Perhaps the most truthful answer is that I never really expected to see it in my lifetime; I also (though in more cynical moments I am skeptical about this) seem to recall thinking that it was an idea for all humanity, so I should publish to prevent anyone else from taking out a patent. As indeed I did...I learned from my patent attorney that even if I had tried to patent communications satellites in 1945, the patent would have been rejected because the required technology did not yet exist, and the patent wouldn’t have been worth getting because its life would only have been 17 years. The patent would have expired the year before Early Bird was launched.

A hundred years ago, the electric telegraph made possible - indeed, inevitable - the United States of America. The communications satellite will make equally inevitable a United Nations of Earth; let us hope that the transition period will not be equally bloody. -- Arthur C. Clarke, First on the Moon, 1970

Arthur C. Clarke: An Appreciation of a Life Well-Lived is an appropriate obituary for the man who, when asked how he'd like to be remembered, is reported to have said, "I have had a diverse career as a writer, underwater explorer and space promoter. Of all these, I would like to be remembered as a writer."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I Have the Power! "the alternative energy and sustainable power blog written by an engineer for engineers" offers some ill-conceived "legal advice" for inventors.

In the business of intellectual property (IP) protection, the first rule is to establish the date on which a new idea was conceived. Conventional wisdom for establishing this date is to write up a short IP disclosure, seal it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself. The US Postal Service postmark legally establishes the date on which the IP within the envelope was created.

Conventional wisdom, or urban myth?

In an article headlined "Who's Idea Is This Anyway?" published several years ago, BusinessWeek discussed with intellectual property attorneys Nadine Jacobson and Allison Strickland the pitfalls of protecting ideas:

Q: How do entrepreneurs get into trouble with copyright, patent, or trademark issues?

Strickland: I think for one thing, they listen to the urban myths that circulate. There's one that says if you write out an idea and put it in an envelope and mail it to yourself, it's copyrighted, and anyone else who uses it is infringing. That's widely believed.

Another one says that as long as you don't take more than 25% or 30% of someone else's work, you're not infringing. But neither of those things is necessarily true.

The problem is that IP concepts are confusing and somewhat sophisticated. It's a very confusing part of the law and easy to misunderstand. The safest thing for entrepreneurs to do is to step back from what they think they know and consult reliable sources to get a reality check.

Jacobson: A lot of times, people who are starting up new businesses are concerned about keeping costs down, and they don't want to hire lawyers. So they go to a family friend or a corporate lawyer who dabbles in IP and get free advice, but it's not exactly accurate.

The blogging engineer is confused now, apparently applying an urban myth about establishing the earliest date of composition of song lyrics in which an aspiring songwriter claims copyright, and confusing that with defensive publication of a technical disclosure of a potentially patentable invention.

Patents are incredibly useful tools in that they give the inventor the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the patented invention. However, this exclusive right must be enforced. If someone is using an invention for which you have a patent, you can sue for infringement to reclaim damages, as well as force the offending party to stop. Unless you initiate the infringement proceedings (or the threat of infringement proceedings), there is nothing to make the offending party stop using your innovation. In essence, patents only have power if you are willing to stand up in court to defend them.

The problem is that obtaining patents is not a trivial process. Legal fees, filing fees, maintenance fees, and lost time by your R&D staff can be quite costly. Spending this kind of money on a powerful innovation that can return hundreds or thousands of times the investment is clearly worth it. Yet, only a small portion of the items from a typical invention review qualify as such. More often, the majority of ideas that result from an invention review are good ideas that, for one reason or another, do not end up patented.

Why?

Typically, there are a number of inventions on which you may already have partial patent protection. Inventions that improve upon an existing patented invention are good examples. Another reason you may not wish to obtain patent protection on a good idea is that you don't expect to ever gain back the money that would be spent pursuing the patent. This is highly typical for inventions that improve the operation of some aspect of your business, but are not part of your general business strategy. (A computer chip manufacturer that finds a better way of packaging would be a good example. Packaging sales are not part of the core business, and most likely patents in this area would never be pursued.)

So what happens to the innovation I don't patent?

Typically, nothing. You are free to use your invention without a patent ... until someone else patents the idea. That's when the problem occurs. At this point, they could force you into paying licensing fees, or to stop using the innovation altogether. In essence, forcing you to stop using an idea you had first, but never patented.

If I had the idea first, doesn't that give me the right to use it?

Unfortunately, having the idea first doesn't do anything for you. The only way to prevent another patent from issuing, or defeating one that has already issued, is by being able to prove not only that the idea already existed, but that it was available to the public as well. This is where technical disclosure comes in. Innovation you do not patent is at risk of being patented by others. Publishing that innovation establishes a clear trail of evidence that you had this idea, and made it available to the public. Therefore, it should be considered "general knowledge" by the patent examiners, and not be allowed to be patented. In effect, allowing you to retain your right to use your own innovation, without the hassle and expense of obtaining patent protection.

Mailing yourself a written record of an idea does not prove that the idea was available to the public. To establish that an idea was available to the public as of a date certain that can be accepted as evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction, an inventor can defensively publish a technical disclosure of the invention in the Prior Art Database, which is accessible by patent examiners at the USPTO and other patent jurisdictions.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

PubMed Central (PMC) is a free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), developed and managed by NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in the National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Recently, on the Patent Information Users Group discussion list, we picked up an email conversation among registered users of the PIUG that raised questions and concerns that re-publication on PubMed Central, while a valuable additional source for online access to information that might be evidence of prior art, does not help establish with any authority the "publication date" or the "public availability date" of the information published in participating journals. As one industry specialist observed:

Websites are notorious for not posting availability dates or publication dates, or for posting dates that later get revised with reloads. Just as masters theses are often problematic prior art documents, not just from a retrieval perspective, but from proof of publication or public availability dates. Universities vary widely in their treatment of their own Masters theses. Some are accessioned like standard publications, get date stamped, cataloged normally,etc., but others merely sit on special collection shelves with no way to prove public availability until someone checks them out!

It is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to verify publication dates of online content. That is why many companies and individuals publish their documents not only in a specific trade journal, but also in secure online environments such as the IP.com Prior Art Database to provide a non-refereed destination for technical disclosures and other documents which need verifiable dates of publication.

If participants in this discussion on the PIUG discussion list and other readers here would like to share thoughts and experiences verifying dates of publication of online documents, we'd be very interested in your comments.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent post on GigaOM, Daniel Berninger argues for the creation of a prior art database of software innovations.

The antidote to software patents involves creating their exact opposite — a formal process of contributing software innovations to the public domain. Vonage’s experience, however, illustrates that the various standards-creating processes represent only a first step. A successful open-source model for patents requires creating a searchable archive of prior art in which inventors contribute their innovations in order to get protection from subsequent litigation.

This would replace the patent office’s dependence on the oath signed by patent applicants “acknowledging the duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability.” Vonage’s decision to base its technical implementations on the work of the VoIP Forum and IETF seems reasonable. Who would have guessed the patent office granted Verizon a patent on the same subject matter?

...

A formal process of filing prior art to the public domain will protect an emerging infocom industry better than just depending on overworked patent examiners and applicants for prior art searches.

Such a system exists, already. The Software Patent Institute (SPI) is a nonprofit corporation formed to provide prior art related to software technology with the intention of improving the patent process.

Founded in 1991, the Software Patent Institute (SPI) is a nonprofit corporation formed to provide prior art related to software technology with the intention of improving the patent process. We strive to aggregate hard-to-access software data which is not readily available online or in electronic form elsewhere. Our source documents include computer manuals, older textbooks, journal articles, conference proceedings, computer science theses, and other such materials which may contain valuable prior art.

The Software Patent Institute is dedicated to providing information to the public and assisting the United States Patent and Trademark Office and others by providing technical support in the form of educational and training programs and providing access to information and retrieval resources concerning software prior art.

The SPI has received strong encouragement from the USPTO, and its mission has been endorsed in reports or resolutions from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform, the Computer Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA), the Software Publishers Association (SPA) and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA).

The Software Patent Institute has among its members some who believe strongly in the desirability of patents for software-related inventions and some who are strongly opposed to patents for software-related inventions. SPI deliberately takes no position on this issue, or on any particular patent or litigation. We believe that there is a current lack of readily-available information concerning software technology, and we are attempting to help solve that problem.

The Software Patent Institute Database of Software Technologies consists of descriptions of software technologies. Each record in the database is all or a portion of a source document that is generally not readily available on-line or in electronic form elsewhere; source documents include computer manuals, older textbooks and older journal articles, conference proceedings, computer science theses, and other such materials, since these are where pointers may be found to prior art.

The Software Patent Institute Database of Software Technologies is contained exclusively in the IP.com Prior Art Database. While limited searching can be performed for free as a "guest", robust and unrestricted searching along with all-inclusive document downloads is available in weekly, monthly, and yearly intervals. Get started searching SPI data today - click here for more information.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to a press release by IFI Patent Intelligence, IBM continued in 2007 as the top corporate assignee of granted patents, as it has for the previous 14 years, with 3,148 patents, down more than 500 grants from the previous year.

But the number of patents granted to IBM represents just a fraction of the many thousands of innovations documented each year by the company. How then, if not by patent application, does IBM secure its innovations for potential future patents or implementation?

Defensive publishing. Here are a few examples of interesting innovations recently published by IBM in the IP.com Prior Art Database:

• A device to warn inattentive drivers they are approaching a red traffic light
• A Methodology for Providing Spa Services in a Virtual World
• Method to ensure timely response to email messages by using probability derived from past interactions

Interested in finding more examples of prior art?

Browse the Prior Art Database or search prior art for free, as our guest.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

How do you prevent competitors from obtaining patents that could block you from using your own innovative ideas in your products and services? This critical question faces managers of innovation and intellectual property throughout the global economy, which is increasingly embroiled in a hotly contested patent race.

Issued patents can be deadly. Enterprises of all stripes face burgeoning risks that competitors will obtain blocking patents. Even strong manufacturers with worldwide distribution, well-branded products and adoring customers can be stopped dead in their tracks by broad competitive patents.

Just how deadly are competitive patents? Consider this, if your competitor is granted a patent broad enough to prevent you from making or selling products and services, you may be forced to litigate. Average legal fees to defend a patent case are over $1.5 million regardless of the outcome. Verdicts and judgments in patent cases can easily exceed eight figures. Even greater costs can be incurred in attempting to design around competitive patents after product launch, or being shut down by a preliminary or permanent injunction.

There are myriad methods for protecting innovation and intellectual property. One answer is to join the patent race. But be prepared to spend. Average legal fees to file one patent application in the U.S. are in the range of $12,000-$15,000. Multiply that by three or four to file applications in key locations throughout the world. Then add over $100,000 to maintain each patent in those locations throughout its life. All that cost for one invention. The problem grows when you consider that for most companies, the number of inventive ideas exceeds the number of budgeted patent applications by at least ten times.

To compound the "cost of getting a patent" problem, consider the recent Supreme Court ruling (KSR Int. v. Teleflex, Inc.) relating to an overwhelmingly important concept called "obviousness." This verdict has essentially made it harder to get patents and harder to enforce already issued patents. This means patent acquisition cost has gone up and patent value has gone down. In most cases, it is simply not cost effective to go through the patent process.

What are the alternatives to patenting?

If created and protected correctly, trade secrets can have real value. But, beware. In today's environment, protecting trade secrets is often unrealistic. Increased competition has driven more aggressive pursuit of information by competitors with access to previously inaccessible data sources and previously unheard of data mining tools. That, coupled with increased employee mobility and ease of communication has made it virtually impossible to keep secrets. Companies may not appreciate the risks associated with the use of trade secrets until after they see their ideas claimed in competitive patents.

How can defensive publishing be incorporated into an IP strategy?

With patenting on the rise, patent offices have become overburdened. This has resulted in patents for technology that has already been in the public domain, sometimes for years. Why? Because patent examiners have very limited time and resources to search prior art. As a result, many references that examiners could use to reject patent applications are never found.

The first reaction some have when considering these issues is to defensively publish everything. However, defensive publications can be a double-edged sword. If placed in the right prior art database, they can be powerful weapons for destroying competitive patents. But, they can also be powerful weapons for destroying your own patents. So, to get started it's a good idea to properly disclose innovation that has already been placed in the public domain, but isn't in a location readily or easily utilized by patent examiners.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Roundtable on Building Community Capacity:  a Roundtable on Practical Initiatives on Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions, Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources will take place at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, from December 10 to 12, 2007.

The Roundtable is an informal, practically-oriented event.  It responds to the strong level of interest expressed by many national authorities and community representatives in sharing experience and developing dialogue and cooperation on practical initiatives to build capacity for the appropriate protection of intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), traditional knowledge (TK) and genetic resources (GR).

The Roundtable follows in the tradition of community consultation that has been part of WIPO’s program in this domain since its inception with the first fact-finding consultations dating back to 1998 and 1999.

One of the first such projects, the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, is being compiled by hundreds of doctors in India with the help of software engineers and patent examiners, an encyclopedia of the country's traditional medicine in five languages - English, French, German, Japanese and Spanish - in an effort to stop people from claiming them as their own novel inventions and patenting them.

The BBC reported on this a couple of years ago.

Indian scientists say the country has been a victim of what they describe as "bio-piracy" for a long time.

"When we put out this encyclopaedia in the public domain, no one will be able to claim that these medicines or therapies are their inventions. Till now, we have not done the needful to protect our traditional wealth," says Ajay Dua, a senior bureaucrat in the federal commerce ministry.

Putting together the encyclopaedia is a daunting task.

For one, ayurvedic texts are in Sanskrit and Hindi, unani texts are in Arabic and Persian and siddha material is in Tamil language. Material from these texts is being translated into five international languages, using sophisticated software coding.

The sheer wealth of material that has to be read through for information is enormous - there are some 54 authoritative 'text books' on ayurveda alone, some thousands of years old.
   
People outside India are not aware of our immense traditional knowledge wealth

Then there are nearly 150,000 recorded ayurvedic, unani and siddha medicines; and some 1,500 asanas (physical exercises and postures) in yoga, which originated in India more than 5,000 years ago.

Under normal circumstances, a patent application should always be rejected if there is prior existing knowledge about the product.

But in most of the developed nations like United States, "prior existing knowledge" is only recognised if it is published in a journal or is available on a database - not if it has been passed down through generations of oral and folk traditions.

The irony here is that India has suffered even though its traditional knowledge, as in China, has been documented extensively.

But information about traditional medicine has never been culled from their texts, translated and put out in the public domain.

PBS Online NewsHour reported on the story again this year, interviewing V.K. Gupta Director, Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, and posted  the audio with a transcript of the program here.

If readers have more information about this ambitious defensive publication, or any like it being undertaken in  China or other countries with indigenous medicinal knowledge, we'd be interested if you might  take a few minutes and leave comments about this at the link below.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks