Is 18 Months Necessary For The Publication? This Creates A Grey Area In The Anticipation Itself! And Why The Concept Of Provisional Application Should Be Abolished & Replaced With The Existing Patent Of Addition After Complete Specification!

 

I covered this topic long back. I’m covering this again with a caveat!

Let’s say between the period of provisional and complete, someone else files or use the almost similar invention. Now, issue is, technically, your right to invoke full rights, retrospectively, starts post grant only! Because usually no one knows how many claims would end up getting accepted or struck down, thus, till then, one has to wait! If anywhere it happens the other way around, then, that’s a problem, because, without the grant and on the basis of contingency & unlikeliness, one cannot enjoy the fruits of something which is still abstract and hypothetical!

Here’s a dilemma! If the specification has not been published and not disclosed, and if someone in this period, especially between the period of the provisional and complete, adopts the same invention, then, how can one file an infringement with the retrospective rights after the grant, because, as the person against whom the rights have been invoked, can claim that, this was not published at the time of his/her adoption, so how would he/she be able to access the details of it, unless the applicant only has disclosed or allowed or given access or maybe, the now defendant is only the real inventor! I’m more specifically talking about the period between the provisional and complete specification filing dates. It could also be extended to until the date of publication date.

Now, in this case, the other side can invoke the groundless threats, whilst the patentee can invoke the infringement rights! Vacuum, as both are technically, if not legally, correct in their own interpretation now!

In one of my previous blogs, I wrote that the concept of the Provisional Application should cease to exit for the reason it doesn’t serve any purpose, when a better option like Patent Of Addition can be used, instead of filing of the complete after provisional. So let there be a complete, and if someone wants to add in the invention, then, file for the Addition rather than filing for the complete after provisional! This will eradicate the grey area of the period between the provisional and complete.

Now my second suggestion was to eliminate the period of 18 Months for the publication, for the reason that, the moment the complete specification is filed, then, immediately after the scrutiny of the documents, it should be published, just like in the case of Trademarks, or maybe just alike in the case of the Copyrights, wherein, a cooling period of 30 Days is there before the Scrutiny starts!

I find this 18 Months timeline a complete waste of time! Yes, in the PCT case, one can have 30/31 months timeline for the national entry, and even the PCT publication guideline is justifiable, but for the national publication timeline, two amendments are necessary viz.:

1.        Remove the concept of Provisional Filings. Rather, proceed with the Complete Specification directly & then Addition which would replace the complete itself in case earlier if it was filed after provisional.

2.        Secondly, remove the concept of 18 Months of National publication period. It is like a Cooling Period which serves NO Purpose, on the face of it, and further, creates a grey area, wherein between upto the period of publication, one can claim to invoke the groundless threats, even if being guilty!

Now you would ask me, but Pranav, there’s already a provision of Early Publication within the  period of One Month of filing of the application. So dear, then my answer would be, why can’t then we make this our default period of the Publication?

In the PCT System itself, I cited in my earlier blogs, many of the corrections that are needed to be taken at WIPO!

Am I missing something! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

Can A Public Leader Protect His / Her Personality & Trademarks Rights? This Dilemma I Had The Other Day! Because The Answer Is Not That Simple Comparing To The Cases Of Actors / Actresses / Entertainers!

 

You’re a Public Government figure. Can you protect your Personality Rights as long as you’re serving the government or public? Or, can a politician / leader galvanize the fruits of his name or surname as Trademarks rights? Can, or, should he/she be ‘fully’ protected by the Copyrights or Trademarks Act? If I were the judge, I wouldn’t consider this question in black & white, nor would give protection in absolute! And the reason I’m going to explain herein underneath!

When you’re appointed or elected as the servant of the government or leader of public, then, you lose some of your personality rights, because, you would be discussed, cherished, blamed, criticized, commended, condemned, as long as you’re there on that position. Now, I’m not in favour of mutilating the morality rights of any politician or leader, which has become a trend, especially with the help of Slop AIs. But, if something is done more academically, with intellectual integrity, in a more refined and subtle manner, including a parody; then that part shouldn’t be considered as violation of personality rights!

I think there was a time, decades back, when liberals used to be more intellectually creative, but in the last 30 years, it seems, for the liberals and especially for the left, it has become more challenging to be more creative!

So, if someone is making caricature of yours, or, making a parody in the most refined and intellectual manner, then as a Politician or Leader, one shouldn’t be complaining about the rights, copyrights, personality rights! And alike the journalists and mainstream have the rights to exploit Fair Use, so should such rights be extended to the general pubic at large as well. Reacting on anything or on anyone, shows one’s own insecurities, and thus, I don’t think the said person is suitable to govern the public!

Again, I’m contending when the moral rights of anyone have not been mutilated! But, this liberty to the public at large should be extended, as long as any person is in the public domain serving as the servant of the government or public.

CAVEAT ->

The ‘lesser’ the number of NGOs in any nation, the ‘more’ the progress that nation will make! And if any nation’s economy is driven by NGOs, then that nation is not a nation at all! And I don’t support NGOs driven hit-job criticisms! Thus, this distinction should be made while granting Personality Rights to the Leaders!

Am I missing something! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

The Ethical Legalities In AI vs AI Suits That Are Never Argued!

 

How many of the cases we’ve seen wherein one AI company sued another AI company for the violation of the BERNE or TRIPS or PARIS Convention? None! In the recent case of Grok VS OpenAI (or Musk VS Sam) too, what exactly is the dispute? That any non-profit should not be allowed to work for profit, else, this will send a wrong message, creating a wrong precedence! And secondly, Musk alleging that, OpenAI wanted to bring him as the shareholder, which Musk considered as bribe (check again for the exact wordings)!

 We have witnessed many cross-litigations in Tech Industry whether it belonged to the Search Engine Giants for monopolies under the Anti-Competitive / Anti-Trust Laws, or, of the IP (especially Patents) infringement cases going back to the 1990s, in which it was argued from  -> that the IP must be protected, to, one cannot enjoy the monopoly in the Market, citing examples of Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer, to,  Duck Duck Go vs Google Search! As we all know that to become the monopoly itself, certain backing is required!

But in the modern times, how many of us have witnessed that one AI company is suing another AI company stating that, if the dilution of the BERNE or TRIPS or Paris Convention is allowed, then, it would send  wrong precedence, just alike in the case of Musk vs Sam, wherein Musk has argued that, if the non-profits are allowed to go for profit, then it will send a wrong message & precedence! Back then, Nadella, when Altman withdrew from the Microsoft, stated that if today, these Gen AI companies, and especially signalling to the ChatGPT, are closed, then the IP of everyone would automatically be protected. Now I don’t remember his exact words, that’s why I’m not mentioning herein (sic), and as I couldn’t find that statement as well, so one can cross-verify that, and kindly let me know also if this is wrong!

Except for this statement, I haven’t heard from a single CEO in the World running any AI company that they should be stopped if they can’t protect the IP Rights of -> others! Yet, when it comes to Anti-Trust laws, to, Non OR For Profits cases, to AI companies’ own AI IP rights; then, they will come in the Media and seek their blessings to remain relevant in the Media for their own sake!

Thus, it would be a pleasure to hear from some CEO of any AI company that, what they’ve done so far by burning and butchering BERNE or Paris Convention or TRIPS, shouldn’t have happened, and initiate a proceedings just alike, in the case of Anti-Trust, IP Infringements, For or Not For Profit cases, and set an example to remain relevant in the media!

Am I missing something! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi