75 research outputs found
Business Method Patents in the US and Europe â Diverging Policies and their Effect on Competition
The patentability of business methods has been debated over a long period of time, nevertheless the exact requirements for a business method to be patent eligible and their interpretation remain unclear both in the US and Europe. Although the patent eligibility of business methods has not been an obvious matter in the US, the US courts and the US patent office has chosen to adopt a quite liberal stance towards this type of patents. The chief concern of the US courts has been to device a standard that will allow the patenting of business methods without granting a patent on the abstract idea itself. Many different approaches have been debated in case law but one of the most prominent standards is the machine-or-transformation test. Hence the connection to a particular machine, or the transformation of an object into a different state or thing, has been two of the main preconditions discussed in US case law in regards to business methods. Even though the standards applied in Europe to determine the patent eligibility of business methods have varied slightly, the term âtechnicalâ has always been central. The current test to assess the patentability of business methods is often referred to as the âany-hardware approachâ. Despite the fact that this standard has relaxed the requirement for a subject matter to be regarded as an invention, the precondition of inventive step, that can only be judged on the basis of the technical features of an invention, is still a great obstacle to patenting business methods in Europe. Hence, the EPO applies a more stringent policy, in relation to the regime implemented in the US, and the fundamentally different starting points of the US and European patent systems make them difficult to compare. The impact that the diverging regimes regarding business method patents implemented in the US and Europe have on competition is an important matter to discuss. The main motivation for creating a patent system, and thereby restricting competition, is to further innovation. The notion is that greater inventiveness will benefit society in several ways and that the special characteristics of knowledge compel the government to intervene on the market, incurring certain costs. One of the great benefits of the patent system is the possibility to trade knowledge through e.g. licensing agreements. However, there may be other circumstances to consider than the traditional economic rationales when discussing the positive and negative effects that patents may have on competition. The quality of patents is a widely debated matter, especially in connection with business method patents which are often referred to as weak patents. Investigating the welfare implications of licensing weak patents is only one way to discuss some of the possible effects on competition that the diverging policies applied in the US and Europe concerning business method patents might produce.AffĂ€rsmetoders patenterbarhet har diskuteras under en lĂ„ng tid, dock Ă€r de exakta kraven för att en affĂ€rsmetod ska anses patenterbar och dessas tolkning inte tillrĂ€ckligt klarlagda, varken i USA eller i Europa. Ăven om patenterbarheten av affĂ€rsmetoder inte har varit en okomplicerad frĂ„ga i USA, har bĂ„de de amerikanska domstolarna och det amerikanska patentkontoret uppvisat en förhĂ„llandevis liberal instĂ€llning till denna typ av patent. Det huvudsakliga spörsmĂ„let i amerikansk rĂ€ttspraxis har varit att hitta en metod som tillĂ„ter patentering av affĂ€rsmetoder men som Ă€ndĂ„ hindrar att patent pĂ„ abstrakta idĂ©er utfĂ€rdas. MĂ„nga olika tillvĂ€gagĂ„ngssĂ€tt för att uppnĂ„ detta mĂ„l har diskuterats i praxis men en av de mest frekvent tillĂ€mpade metoderna Ă€r maskin-eller-omvandlingstestet. Detta test fokuserar pĂ„ huruvida patentansökan Ă€r kopplad till en viss maskin, eller om processen som ansökan beskriver inkluderar en omvandling av ett objekt till en annan form eller sak. Trots att olika kriterier för att faststĂ€lla patenterbarheten av affĂ€rsmetoder har tillĂ€mpats i Europa sĂ„ kretsar alla bedömningsgrunderna kring begreppet âtekniskâ. Den för tillfĂ€llet aktuella metoden för att bedöma patenterbarheten av affĂ€rsmetoder krĂ€ver endast att en metod eller process Ă€r kopplad till en fysisk enhet för att betraktas som en uppfinning. Dock kan endast en uppfinnings tekniska komponenter ligga till grund för bedömning av objektets uppfinningshöjd, vilket utgör ett avsevĂ€rt hinder för patenteringen av affĂ€rsmetoder. DĂ€rmed uppstĂ€ller det europeiska patentkontoret högre krav pĂ„ patentansökningar som rör affĂ€rsmetoder Ă€n den amerikanska rĂ€ttsordningen. Eftersom de amerikanska och europeiska patentsystemen har vitt skilda utgĂ„ngspunkter rörande patent pĂ„ affĂ€rsmetoder, blir en jĂ€mförelse av de kriterier som tillĂ€mpas vid bedömning av patenterbarheten av affĂ€rsmetoder svĂ„r att genomföra. Effekterna som de olika möjligheterna att fĂ„ beviljat patent pĂ„ affĂ€rsmetoder i USA och Europa kan tĂ€nkas ha pĂ„ konkurrensen Ă€r en viktig frĂ„ga. Den dominerande anledningen till att införa ett patentsystem, och dĂ€rmed begrĂ€nsa konkurrensen, Ă€r att frĂ€mja innovation. Tanken Ă€r att större uppfinningsrikedom kommer att gynna samhĂ€llet pĂ„ flera sĂ€tt men att kunskap har vissa specifika egenskaper som gör att statlig intervention Ă€r nödvĂ€ndigt, Ă€ven om detta ingripande ocksĂ„ leder till vissa kostnader. En av de stora fördelarna med ett patentsystem Ă€r att kunskap kan överlĂ„tas, genom till exempel licenser. Dock kan det finnas andra aspekter som bör belysas Ă€n de traditionella ekonomiska bevekelsegrunderna i en diskussion kring de positiva och negativa inverkningarna som patent kan medföra ur konkurrenshĂ€nseende. PatentkvalitĂ© Ă€r ett vida debatterat spörsmĂ„l, sĂ€rskilt i förhĂ„llande till patent pĂ„ affĂ€rsmetoder som ofta anses vara svaga patent. Att undersöka vĂ€lfĂ€rdsaspekterna av att licensiera patent av lĂ„g kvalitĂ© Ă€r dĂ€rmed endast ett tillvĂ€gagĂ„ngssĂ€tt för att diskutera de möjliga effekter pĂ„ konkurrensen som de skilda möjligheterna att patentera affĂ€rsmetoder i USA och Europa kan tĂ€nkas medföra
A Longitudinal Comparison of Arm Morbidity in Stage IâII Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Followed by Completion Lymph Node Dissection, or Axillary Lymph Node Dissection
Background:\ud
Long-term shoulder and arm function following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) may surpass that following complete axillary lymph node dissection (CLND) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We objectively examined the morbidity and compared outcomes after SLNB, SLNB + CLND, and ALND in stage I/II breast cancer patients.\ud
\ud
Materials and Methods:\ud
Breast cancer patients who had SLNB (n = 51), SLNB + CLND (n = 55), and ALND (n = 65) were physically examined 1 day before surgery (T0), and after 6 (T1), 26 (T2), 52 (T3), and 104 (T4) weeks. Differences in 8 parameters between the affected and unaffected arms were calculated. General linear models were computed to examine time, group, and interaction effects.\ud
\ud
Results:\ud
All outcomes changed significantly, mostly nonlinearly, over time (T0âT4). Between T1 and T4, limitations decreased in abduction (all groups); anteflexion, abduction-exorotation, abduction strength (SLNB + CLND, ALND); flexion strength (SLNB + CLND); and arm volume (SLNB, SLNB + CLND). At T4, limitations in anteflexion (SLNB, ALND), abduction (SLNB + CLND, ALND), exorotation (ALND), abduction-exorotation (all groups), and volume (SLNB + CLND, ALND) increased significantly compared with T0. The SLNB group showed an advantage in anteflexion, abduction, abduction-exorotation, and volume. Groups changed significantly but differently over time in anteflexion, abduction, abduction/exorotation, abduction strength, flexion strength, and volume. Effect sizes varied from 0.19 to 0.00.\ud
\ud
Conclusion:\ud
Initial declines in range of motion and strength were followed by recovery, although not always to presurgery levels. Range of motion and volume outcomes were better for SLNB than ALND, but not strength. SLNB surpassed SLNB + CLND in 2 of the range of motion variables. The clinical relevance of these results is negligible
NĂ©crologie du Pr. Michal Cwirko-Godycki
Swedborg I. Nécrologie du Pr. Michal Cwirko-Godycki. In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, XIII° Série. Tome 8 fascicule 4, 1981. pp. 385-387
NĂ©crologie du Pr. Michal Cwirko-Godycki
Swedborg I. Nécrologie du Pr. Michal Cwirko-Godycki. In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, XIII° Série. Tome 8 fascicule 4, 1981. pp. 385-387
Ambulance nurseÂŽs experiences of crisis support after a traumatic event in their daily work.
- âŠ