In these thoroughly congenial surroundings the battle-lines were drawn between those who advocated the adoption of a sub-patent system for protecting innovations as utility models, based on the German concept of the Gebrauchsmuster, and those who doubted both its objectives and its ability to achieve them.
here), he explained not so much the history of its right as its pedigree. Wolrad then described the flexibility, economy and utility (which of course we would naturally expect from a 'utility' model right) in terms which made us wonder why this right was not the natural first choice for any small, medium-sized or even giant enterprise intent on securing maximum punch for minimum cost.
here), "Secondary protection of innovations in Germany: is there another side of the story?" he strove to undermine Wolrad's case. Without seeking to dispute or contradict his adversary's paper, he based his approach on the technique of measuring German utility model protection against its stated aims and in seeking to measure the distance between aspiration and actuality. Karsten's conclusions: the protection was no protection, given the reluctance of courts to grant any interim injunctive relief to protect an unexamined right; the economies were false economies and, faced with a choice between adopting a Gebrauchsmuster system or improving the tried and tested patent system, the latter was by far the more preferable.
|The audience liked it too ...|
JIPLP thanks the GRUR Int team for making the occasion so memorable and looks forward to publishing the text of both Wolrad's and Karsten's papers in due course.
The second JIPLP-GRUR Int. seminar, which will be held in The German Patent and Trade Mark Office in Munich on 6 March, covers the new European Patent Package. It is already fully booked.