Bits & Bytes

Patent
Hide comments

13 thoughts on “Bits & Bytes”

  3. 11

    If you have to sue to collect the RR after an offer of such is refused, the infringer should be enjoined.

    eBay is very clear on the point that “you have to sue to get your remedy” is not sufficient grounds for an injunction. I can’t imagine how you think it helps the patentee’s case that the remedy originally sought wasn’t even an injunction.

    So, I ask again, square your position with eBay.

  5. 9

    The hypothetical is that An offer was made and rejected.

    The hypothetical is that the patentee has specified a sum of money in exchange for which he will let the infringer practice the invention. It’s essentially an admission that money damages are sufficient, just in case the fact of asserting a standard-essential patent isn’t enough.

    EBay cannot say that the patent owner is completely without remedy, Neither money nor an injunction..

    You’re aware that the court has the power to award money damages, even over the defendant’s objection, right?

  6. 8

    So, to be clear Leibowitz, Motorola built an extensive R&D department that was coupled with a patent department. The patent department was a relatively small percentage of the total money spend in R&D. Without the patents to protect the R&D, why would Motorola or the next Motorola do all that R&D?

    If anything, the sale of Motorola without people like you, has ensured greater R&D money.

  7. 7

    >“Anyone who is in the business of being the chairman of an >antitrust enforcement agency would like to bring the big case,” >Leibowitz said.

    Gee thanks Leibowitz for not fulfilling your ego driven desire. Sounds like it was quite the struggle for you.

    Leibowitz also said that the money spent on patents (writing and buying) is better spent on research.

    So, Leibowitz has made a factual finding that patents do not encourage research but inhibit it. We can be sure that Leibowitz knows nothing about patents or research. This is the problem with this none empirical driven Lemley’ites.

    Leibowitz: try to do a mind experiment (when you aren’t looking at yourself in the mirror). What would the world look like without patents? What would stop a factory in China from duplicating the iPhone and selling it in the U.S.? Why would Apple do research and invest billions in product development if it can be copied freely?

    We have FTC chairman saying as if it is fact that patents are a waste, and amazingly that the money spent on patents would simply be diverted to R&D.

    Just amazing how bad this has gotten. What Leibowitz would have happened to Motorola without patents? If patents had no value or didn’t exist, what is the product of the research labs? Isn’t it actually, the opposite of what you said Leibowitz–that research would be considered corporate waste. That if the product of the research lab was freely available to all then it would be legally waste for a corporation to engage in research.

    By the way, Leibowitz, read about pre-patent world of computers where the next big thing was encryption chips tied to the CPU so that people couldn’t steal your code.

    The world never ceases to disappoint me. Now we have an FTC Leibowitz that just knows these things ’cause. Maybe Leibowitz should publish an “paper” in the vanity press Stanford Law Review about patents. He surely knows more than Lemley whose “papers” regular fill the trash rag.

  8. 6

    The hypothetical is that An offer was made and rejected. EBay cannot say that the patent owner is completely without remedy, Neither money nor an injunction..

    Sent from iPhone

  9. 5

    a injunction should be available if the PO offers a reasonable royalty (provable under the Georgia Pacific factors) and the infringer refuses a license for whatever reason.

    Can you square that with eBay, since it’s clear on those facts that a specific and easily ascertainable sum of money will make the patentee whole?

  10. 4

    Well, Paul, a injunction should be available if the PO offers a reasonable royalty (provable under the Georgia Pacific factors) and the infringer refuses a license for whatever reason.

  11. 3

    Legal articles related to business are very important to educate young businessmen. You make those complicated legal issues very acceptable. Let me please invite you to write business legal articles to Attorney Online link to attorney-online.info One more important thing. If you know good business attorneys or other good lawyers, they can submit their contacts to Attorney Directory for free and post to Attorney Blog.

  12. 2

    I was pleased to see this, as I had publicly suggested some time ago that agreed or forced binding arbitration was the only practical solution to the quandary posed by the inherent ambiguity of “fair and reasonable” values for the widely-used “FRAND” licenses for patents and FRAND-subject patents [licenses implied by active participation in standards-settings].
    Also, to resolve the subsidiary and as yet undecided legal issue (and the litigation thereon) as to whether or not a standards-necessary FRAND-subject patent owner can properly seek an injunction for infringement [not just a FRAND royalty] or properly seek an ITC import exclusion order.
    I would not be surprised to see the FTC seek participation or input re other FRAND-subject patents litigations over major consumer products in which an injunction is being sought.

Comments are closed.