What is it?
From a quantitative point of view, the work of public decision-makers is rarely interrupted. In France alone, on average, there are more than 16,000 amendments in the Parliament each year and more than 55 new laws promulgated. And that does not take into account the proposals of laws nor the regional texts, the decrees, nor the European texts! Sometimes, only one small amendment can have tremendous negative impacts on a business, its growth or its revenues. One small wording can also change the whole situation and be extremely positively impactful. Once the provision is identified, it is sometimes necessary to react so that a measure proposed by the government, a parliamentarian or a European body is modified: either the provision is dangerous and the priority objective is to obtain its deletion or modification. It is also often necessary to take action to ensure that the text will not be removed as a result of influences from other actors! Influences & Reputation has developed expertise also in this field, in a very large number of sectors. Each case being unique, we propose a pragmatic and realistic action plan so that the previously defined objective (withdrawal, maintenance or modification) is achieved within the framework of our obligation of means.
A patent is a tool designed to protect any invention. The French authorities allegedly stated that patents in France would not be used enough : companies would patent four times less than their German’s. The French authorities therefore wanted to reverse this trend. In a bill of more than 70 articles aimed at simplifying the existence of businesses, the government included some provisions on the granting of patents. The ultimate goal: increasing its value. But the conditions for obtaining a patent are actually severely hardened, according to some experts. Also, they claim the new mechanism would lead to an increase in cost and delivery time. In the end, protection would be limited, not to say reduced. Investments of companies would be less protected. The real effects would therefore be opposed to those sought, despite laudable intentions. A certain number of inventors and associations have thus intervened in the debate, with parliamentarians and in the press, to oppose what (in their eyes) would accentuate the problem instead of solving it…