RECENTLY
#1. Twitter’s Puny Patent Portfolio May Prove A Positive
Leading up Twitter’s IPO, market analysts are pointing to the relatively small number of patents held by the company as weakness. Jeff John Roberts, writing for GigaOM explains why Twitter’s slim patent portfolio might not be a weakness, but instead a sign of strength.
-read Bloomberg’s countervailing story here.
#2. Apple Touchscreen Patent Upheld in Reexamination
Steven Musil, writing for C|Net, reports that “after invalidating US Patent No. 7,479,949 last December, the USPTO issued a re-examination certificate (see article & examination certificate here) reaffirming all 20 claims included in the patent, according to a filing last month spotted by Foss Patents.”
#3. Jorge Contreras on Patent Pledges Outside Standards-Setting Organizations
Dan O'Connor, writing at Patent Progress, interviewed Jorge Contreras to discuss his new paper, “Patent Pledges,” covering FRAND commitments and a call for a new paradigm in standards-setting. Mr. Contreras is a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University and a contributor at Patent Progress. His research focuses primarily on the effects of intellectual property structures on the dissemination and production of technological innovation, with a focus on basic scientific research and technical standards development.
#4. Goodlatte’s Innovation Act
Both Dennis Crouch here at Patently-O, and our friend Andrew Williams at PatentDocs, wrote about legislation proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va), namely the “Innovation Act.” The bill is squarely aimed at Patent Trolls and allows for parties to discover who the ultimate owner of the patent or exclusive right actually is, rather than a shell corporation.
-Read Dennis’ article here.
-Read Andrew’s article here.
PENDING
#1. Samsung Files Patent on Competitor to Google Glass
Alex Colon, writing at GigaOM, reports that Samsung has filed a design patent in Korea that looks suspiciously similar to Google Glass. Apparently, the Samsung patent focuses more on the “sportiness” of the spectacles. “The patent shows that the glasses could come with built-in earphones, which would allow you to listen to music and answer calls while you’re wearing it.”
COOL TECH
#1. Unbreakable Chemical Locks
Lisa Zyga’s story at Phys.org explains how research performed by Professor Abraham Shanzer and his group at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel could lead to the first chemical lock that responds to multiple “passwords.”
-read the article here.
UPCOMING
Whittier Law School IP Symposium
- The Global Medicine Challenge: The Fine Line Between Incentivizing Innovation and Protecting Human Rights
- The Keynote Speaker will be James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, and NGO dealing with issues involving Intellectual Property.
- This event has been approved for 5.5 hours of CLE
- View the Program Flyer here.
WIPO Events
- WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name Dispute Resolution: Update on Precedent and Practice
Geneva, Switzerland, October 29 and 30, 2013 - International Technology – Licensing and Dispute Resolution
Madrid, Spain, November 11, 2013
JOBS
#1. Patent Associate – Law Firm – Rockford, Ill.
–Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., is a full-service business-oriented law firm with offices in Chicago, Rockford, Denver, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Madison, and Waukesha with a national and international client base.
#2. Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Washington, D.C.
–Morris & Kamlay LLP, an IP specialty firm in DC with a relaxed and flexible work environment, is looking for an experienced patent prosecutor.
#3. Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Melbourne, Australia
–Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick is seeking a Patent Attorney to work in its Melbourne, Australia, offices.
You wouldn’t know it to look around today, but the Canada Goose was once an uncommon bird./r
You wouldn’t know it to look around today, but the Canada Goose was once an uncommon bird./r
Below I discuss why I believe that the Apple claim that Malcolm quotes to be abstract: it calculates a location and does nothing with it let alone perform the automation tasks promised by the story. Such has long been ineligible. So, why is the PTO still issuing such patents? I really do not get it. This HAS to be a failure of leadership.
#2. Intellectual Ventures Faces Novel Attack on Business ModelSymantec and Trend Micro are fighting back against Intellectual Ventures. IV is asking for a combined $310 million from the companies for licensing a patent that cost IV $750,000 seven years ago. Symantec and Trend Micro are advancing a novel attack that basically says they shouldn’t have to pay such a large amount of money for a patent bought so “cheaply.†The two companies are asking a federal judge to bar IV from seeking such large licensing fees on the grounds that a patent acquired for so little couldn’t possibly be worth so much.Ok, sounds like a good set of facts to horn into your Georgia-Pacific arguments counselor. Legal damages in a patent case are protected under the 7th amendment. Stipulate to infringement and validity and let’s impanel a jury.
When the lawyers at Intellectroll Ventures aren’t combing through their portfolio of 80,000 junky patents figuring out which ones to assert next, I assume they are combing the Internet looking for poorly designed lotteries that they can win by buying most of the tickets.You know: fighting the good fight.
Pure soapboxing from Malcolm.
It’s a perfectly accurate description of Intellectroll Ventures’ “business model.”Did they try to patent that business model, by the way? Surely it wasn’t too obvious to be patented …
U.S. Patent No. 7,072,849: Method for presenting advertising in an interactive service; and U.S. Patent No. 7,099,862: Programmatic discovery of common contacts.Oh, I bet those are some real winners.
Apple has been granted a patent covering technology thatmonitors your location and then performs automation tasks. It is U.S. Patent No. 8,577,392.Functionally claimed obvious junk, per the usual Apple practice.1. A device for relaying location information, the device comprising: a) A receiver to receive first signals from a plurality of first devices associated with a person, each of the first signals comprising first data, the first data being indicative of an estimated location of the person, wherein, for at least one of the first devices, the first data is indicative of a real-time user-input activity; b) A location estimator to estimate a location of the person associated with the plurality of first devices, the location estimator comprising a data aggregator to aggregate at least some of the first data in the first signals; and c) a weight assigner to assign one or more weights to the first data in the first signals, wherein the estimated location of the person is based at least in part on the assigned weights; d) A signal generator to generate one or more second signals based on the estimated location of the person, each of the one or more second signals comprising second data; and e) A transmitter that transmit the one or more second signals to a plurality of second devices.Everybody got that? It’s a “location information relayer” that (wait for it!) receives signals from a user (using a “receiver”!!! it receives signals … from devices that send them!!!), estimates the location of the user based on those signals (using a “location estimator”! WOW!) and then generates signals (using a signal generator!!! OMG!) with the estimated location information and transmits them to other devices (using a transmitter!!! can you believe it?? How do they figure this stuff out????).Gosh, I wonder how those “plurality of second devices” receive the signal? What fantastic technology has been developed that would allow that? Have we come so far that a second device can receive a signal from a first device and actually do something in response to that signal? This should be headline news.
Obviousness under 35 USC 103 is based upon the claimed invention as a whole not based upon the obviousness of the individual elements.When reading your rants, I wonder what audience(s) you are writing to. It is certainly your prerogative to attack a patent. However, when you do so based upon reasons that have nothing to do with patent law, you undermine your own credibility.To that end, I don’t understand your writing style — I never have. There are far better ways to make the points you are attempting to make without engaging in the over-the-top hyperbole you are very fond of. Your writing style only makes it far too easy for people to be dismissive of your positions.
Obviousness under 35 USC 103 is based upon the claimed invention as a wholeThat’s nice. None of the elements in this combination do anything other than what they would be expected to do. Devices that receive information, process that information, and send the processed information to other devices are ancient. Determining the location of things is ancient. Doing things “automatically” based on the information about the location of things is ancient. What else is there in this claim? Nothing. It’s junk. reasons that have nothing to do with patent law,LOL. You think stringing together functionally recited nonsense describing old technology with new words has “nothing to do with patent law”? That’s funny.your writing style only makes it far too easy for people to be dismissive of your positions.I notice that other than your reflexively recited gobbledygook about “claims as a whole” you have nothing to say in defense of this junk. That’s because it’s indefensible. But go ahead and keep trying. Or you can be “dismissive” of my position if that makes you happy.
None of the elements in this combination do anything other than what they would be expected to do.Again, the issue revolves about what the invention as a whole — not the collection of parts. It has long been recognized that “virtually all [inventions] are combinations of old elements.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).You think stringing together functionally recited nonsense describing old technology with new words has “nothing to do with patent law”?Describing old technology? Then I assume you have a 102 reference you would like to cite?I notice that other than your reflexively recited gobbledygook about “claims as a whole” you have nothing to say in defense of this junk.It is reflexive because it is in the statute. I don’t recall “functionally recited nonsense” anywhere in 35 USC 103. As for defending the patent, I have no interest in the patent so I don’t care either way. I do, however, have an interest in the law.
I have no interest in the patent so I don’t care either way.ROTFLMAO! Whatever you say. I do, however, have an interest in the law.So do I. A “device” claim is obvious when it recites, in broad functional terms, a combination of old functions that achieve nothing more than what those functions would be expected to achieve. This “device” is nothing more than a computer that receives information (wow!), processes it (in an old way), and performs an old act in response to that old information processing (sends information to a “second device”). You want to make something out of the fact that there is some”location determination” involved? That adds nothing patent-worthy to this junk. Processing information relevant to a location of a signal source is also older than the hills. So is transmitting that information to another device. You can recite “claims as a whole” until you are blue in the face. It doesn’t change the fact that this claim is broad, functionally claimed obvious junk.I assume you have a 102 reference you would like to cite?I don’t, off the top of my head. But why bother with 102 when 103 works perfectly well and was designed to eliminate exactly this kind of obvious junk. By the way, you’ve again demonstrated what the reflexive defenders of computer-implemented junk and “strengtheners of the patent system” really believe: any and every computer-implemented device or method should be patentable as long as it is “new”. You don’t really understand “obvious”. That’s because you don’t want to. All you understand is that if you repeat “claims as a whole” to an incompetent Examiner you sometimes get your claim allowed, which is the best thing ever. For you.
when 103 works perfectly well and was designed to eliminate exactly this kind of obvious junkThe USPTO didn’t think so.
The USPTO didn’t think so.Um, yeah, … that’s why we’re having this discussion. I’m glad you’re keeping up. Had Apple’s claim been tanked by the USPTO as obvious junk, nobody would have cared except maybe for Apple and I don’t think it would have mattered much to them either.
Once again Malcolm, it is not that you disagree with patents for software, it is how you go about it.Lecturing others on ‘growing up’ while you insist on your name-calling and tantrums (the epitome of your meme of Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-You-Do) is simply no way to go about gaining any credibility for what you want to say.
it is not that you disagree with patents for softwareOh, it most definitely is that. I mean, everyone can just stroll over to Gene’s place and see that one’s “writing style” makes zero difference to you or any of the other patent teabaggers. All dissenters are either “naive” about the “technology”, “naive” about the “law”, “naive” about “history”, or they are anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, anti-American “leftists” seeking to “take us back to the stone age.”It’s pretty funny that you’d try to pretend otherwise at this late date.
Describing old technology? Then I assume you have a 102 reference you would like to cite?And just in case it isn’t, um, “obvious” to everyone already: it’s trivial to write a claim that can’t be tanked under 102 (perhaps the world’s easiest law to avoid). And one need know nothing whatsoever about any “technology” to do it. That’s why firms that work for “computer technology” companies (like “social media” entrepeneurs) routinely use people with no special “computer technology” skills to prosecute those kinds of patent applications. You don’t need a specialized tech background. All you need to know are those magical words that suffice to put the PTO under your spell.”Receiver”, “transmitters”, “processors”, “signals” … this is “technology” like a rock and a stick are “technology.” But for some reason the USPTO continues to remain very impressed when these things are magically combined to produce devices that (wait for it) “receive” “process” and/or “transmit” information using some kind of “signal”. Look, mom! No wires! It fits in my hand! No, you wear it on your wrist! It’s so small it fits in your ear!It’s 2013. Has the software patenting industry grown up yet?
“Receiver”, “transmitters”, “processors”, “signals”I’ve got all this in front of me right now. Why isn’t it performing the claimed invention?
performing the claimed inventionThe claimed invention is a device. What’s to “perform”?
There are far better ways to make the points you are attempting to makeI’m not “attempting to make” a point. I’m making my point in exactly the words I intend: this claim is junk. The only claim that could be junkier than this one is the claim that Apple probably filed at the PTO in the first place.There’s a certain group of self-interested folks out there who love to pretend that what is being claimed in junk claims like this one is some kind of complicated new “technology”. But it’s not complicated at all. It’s written by lawyers to make it seem complex at first glance but in fact it’s just old functionally recited garbage strung together for the purpose of achieving their old functions. The greedy lawyers at Intellectual Ventures will mumble some horsehockey about “incremental innovation” or some equally vapid self-serving swill but all they’re really saying is that, in the computer arts at least, any “innovation” that hasn’t been described before in the exact terms that appear in the claim deserves to be protected by a patent. That’s pretty much the same message communicated by people who stomp their feet and screech about “considering the claims as a whole” whenever the obviousness of some junky computer-implemented “innovation” is explained by someone uninterested in stroking the egos of the geniuses who filed and/or prosecuted the application.
But it’s not complicated at all. It’s written by lawyers to make it seem complex at first glance but in fact it’s just old functionally recited garbage strung together for the purpose of achieving their old functions.Too bad the USPTO didn’t see it that way.The greedy lawyers at Intellectual Ventures will mumble some horsehockey about “incremental innovation” or some equally vapid self-serving swill… and the same statements were probably made about patent attorneys in every technology that has ever been patented. Ho hum.That’s pretty much the same message communicated by people who stomp their feet and screech about “considering the claims as a whole”Again, we are actually citing the statute. You, on the other hand, are making policy arguments (actually more rant than argument) against a broad class of patents. As I mentioned earlier, your penchant for over-the-top hyperbole does little to aid the persuasive of your arguments. When you start foaming at the mouth, people are going to tune you it.
Too bad the USPTO didn’t see it that way.That’s exactly what I’m saying. It is too bad because it shows that the USPTO is easily snowballed.we are actually citing the statute.In fact, you are citing one section of a statute and pretending that this one section nullifies the entire point of the statute which is to prevent the issuance of non-novel obvious claims. the same statements were probably made about patent attorneys in every technology that has ever been patentedPatent attorneys “in technology”? Huh? What “technology” are the greedy lawyers at Intellectroll Ventures “in” exactly? Is lawyering a “technology” now? I’m sure that they wish it was. You … are making policy arguments … against a broad class of patents.Oh noes! The worst thing ever. And I’m all alone in this world. Pretty much everyone else just loves this computer-implented junk and wants more patents, all the time. Just ask anybody.Seriously, there is no “policy argument” needed to determine that Apple’s patent we are discussing is junk. I can make such an argument if you like, though.
Pretty much everyone else just loves this computer-implented junk and wants more patents, all the time. Just ask anybody99% of people don’t care either way, which is your problem. If you are going to change the status quo, you are going to need more support.
“99% of people don’t care either way, which is your problem”If you take the time to explain the situation to them they care more than a little about this blatant fraud. Just about as much as they care about preventing other white collar fraud. “If you are going to change the status quo, you are going to need more support.”I think you’ll find that all he’ll really need is more education of folks. The support will follow.
99% of people don’t care either wayMaybe where you live. But not in the big cities where educated people tend to congregate. People do care. You should get out more often. If you are going to change the status quo, you are going to need more support.The status quo is changing and the number of people who are aware of the problems with our patent system is growing all the time.
Is “oh noes” and h@tred of lawyers really necessary for a conversation?Malcolm – find some work in a field in which you can believe in the work product produced.
Shush child, yes that man is walking around naked, but he is the King, and we dare not say anything./eyeroll
“Too bad the USPTO didn’t see it that way.”Who’s to say they didn’t? And if you, how do you know they didn’t? “… and the same statements were probably made about patent attorneys in every technology that has ever been patented”Odd, I don’t hear it all that much from people describing the lawlyers in thems old school useful arts. I should very much like to read some history on the subject if you have some on hand.
Who’s to say they didn’t? And if you, how do you know they didn’t?Apple did get a patent, didn’t they? Who issues patents these days?
Just because they got a patent doesn’t mean that the PTO folk didn’t think that the patent claim was written by lawyers to make it seem complex at first glance but in fact the claim is just old functionally recited garbage strung together for the purpose of achieving their old functions. PTO folk routinely think this and similar things about applications and yet they issue them anyway. If you’d ever spent more than a day here you’d know that.
“I’m making my point in exactly the words I intend”How incredibly sad.
When reading your rants, I wonder what audience(s) you are writing to.I’m writing for the same “audience” you’re writing to. It’s a pretty big audience. There’s a whole lot of different people in this audience. But I guarantee you that the smallest group of people in the audience is educated patent attorneys who, after a few minutes of studying this claim, don’t agree that it’s pretty darn junky. In fact, the vast majority of the audience appreciates a skilled attorney who can break this stuff down for them in laymen’s terms and show them (1) why many people believe that our patent system is broken, at least when it comes to the examination and assertion of computer-implemented junk, and (2) that it’s being exploited by a few greedy lawyers at the expense of everyone else.
the vast majority of the audience appreciates a skilled attorney who can break this stuff down for them in laymen’s terms .Really? Are you that delusional? You think the vast majority of the audience appreciates your childish “breakdown” of these patents?I suspect that the vast majority of Patently-O readers are those that support the current patent system. Moreover, I suspect that the vast majority of Patently-O readers would prefer that the patent system be strengthened — not weakened. Perhaps your comments about the readership applies to Ars Technica or Slashdot, but I doubt very much they apply to this website.Perhaps Dennis could do a survey regarding this very issue. I am very curious to see the breakout as to the readership of Patently-O and their respective opinions about the US patent law system.
those that support the current patent system.readers would prefer that the patent system be strengthenedWhat does that phrase mean to you?your childish “breakdown”Seems like you’re the one having the “childish breakdown”. All I did was explain why Apple’s patent claim is junk. It should never have issued. I would have no problem “infringing” that junk with a device of my own design that included all those “functions”. No fears whatsoever.Do you work for Apple or something? Why the exhuberant rush to defend this junk? Oh wait, you’re not defending it. You’re just insulting me because I criticized it. I am very curious to see the breakout as to the readership of Patently-O and their respective opinions about the US patent law system A survey won’t begin to answer your question because most people who read the blog won’t bother to answer the survey. But you knew that already.
Do you work for Apple or something? Why the exhuberant rush to defend this junk?You are really miserable at this arguing thing, aren’t you? Anybody reading my comments could hardly conclude that I have engaged in any type of “[exuberant] rush” to defend the patent. However, by saying that I have, you have continued to dig a deeper hole into which your credibility is to be thrown and buried.I previously used the term “delusional” to describe you and you have shown me no reason to back away from that statement.I would have no problem “infringing” that junk with a device of my own design that included all those “functions”. No fears whatsoever.That doesn’t prove anything. I wouldn’t have any fears either — because the value of my infringement wouldn’t be worth more than a few minutes of attorney time.A survey won’t begin to answer your question because most people who read the blog won’t bother to answer the survey. But you knew that already.Dennis has taken many surveys on this blog, and he apparently believes that they have some worth. But you knew that already.
Malcolm continues to prove my point about what constitutes poor blogging.
What I would say, Malcolm, is that the claim is abstract on its face. It receives data and manipulates it to determine a “location.” The end transmitting step is not a useful application of that location.
abstract on its faceGod … that is what I love about your side. Anytime you make an argument that a device comprising a receiver, signal generator, and transmitter is “abstract on its face,” you lose credibility. It is so incredibly easy to attack that argument.
I want to point out the story description of this patent describe that it calculated a location and then “perform automation tasks.” The claim that Malcolm posted has none such listed. It simply ends with a calculated location.Since Benson, and particularly including Flook, Diehr, Bilski and Prometheus, a claim that ends with a calculated result and does nothing with it is simply not eligible.That is all that this claim does. Nothing.
want to point out the story description of this patent describe that it calculated a location and then “perform automation tasks.” The claim that Malcolm posted has none such listed. It simply ends with a calculated location.True enough. Of course it would hardly matter what happened after that. What’s a non-obvious way for someone to use “location data”? Unless of course it’s location data about available real estate or location data relevant to shoving an ad in a person’s face.
Are you saying that a business use does not fall under the use requirement of 101?Care to provide some semblance of legal support for that position?
a claim that ends with a calculated result and does nothing with it is simply not eligibleAnother person that doesn’t understand the difference between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of 35 USC 112. Claims don’t describe the invention … claims distinguish the invention.
Patent_Guru, what planet have you been living on for the last 40 years while we have seen Benson thru Prometheus all decide that the unapplied result of a calculation is not eligible?
all decide that the unapplied result of a calculation is not eligibleWas that the holding? Can you give me a quote and a cite? I’ll be waiting.
Patent Guru, “Can you give me a quote…?”Benson, “The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application…”Flook, “All that it provides is a formula for computing an updated alarm limit…” “An ‘alarm limit’ is a number.”Diehr, “[W]hen a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula …”Bilski, “”[A]n application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.’ … [I]t is clear that petitioners’ application is not a patentable ‘process.'” Prometheus, “[T]o transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature…”
B: quote misleading (omits “… except in connection with a digital computer”) and not the holdingF: not the holding (the claim actually recited “[a]djusting said alarm limit to said updated limit value”)D: language doesn’t require application of result — only that the formula is appliedB: doesn’t support your statementP: doesn’t support your statementThanks for trying!
Patent Guru, the application of a mathematical algorithm to a known machine or process may be eligible (Diehr), but simply reciting the use of a machine or process without any substantial change in the machine or process is “insignificant” extra solution activity, e.g., Flook, confirmed in every subsequent case.
Ned,Programming the machine changes the machine.
Ned,You do realize that Benson and Flook were cabined by Diehr, right? See Bilski.
Please tell us about it o last of the Diehrbots!
You are quite missing the point of the amicus brief, 6.
You are quite missing the pointI guess this is the kind of great writing that Patent Guru enjoys.
“a device comprising a receiver, signal generator, and transmitter”Devices comprising that were invented in the 1800’s iirc nobody calls them abstract. It’s when you start piling abstractions thereupon that people start calling the claim abstract.
P.T. Barnum called…
Symantec and Trend Micro are advancing a novel attack that basically says they shouldn’t have to pay such a large amount of money for a patent bought so “cheaply.†The two companies are asking a federal judge to bar IV from seeking such large licensing fees on the grounds that a patent acquired for so little couldn’t possibly be worth so much.Novel = bad. This is called information asymmetry … its been around as long as goods have been traded. Then again, this is what you get with many litigators. They’ll bill the $$$$$$ out of you to throw any argument against the wall to see what sticks.
When the client says, “Look, I get that it’s terrible, but just argue something, anything. I don’t care. Just put up a plausible defense so that we can at least take a negotiating position that speaks to the cost of defending against our claims…” You do it.
Intellectual Ventures attorney Richard Hess said his client had a lot more information about the patent’s value than the seller, because IV knew how much companies like Symantec and Trend Micro used the technology.Richard Hess is a great attorney. He knows how to tell an amusing story. The truth is that IV knows it is in a better position to extort deep pocketed companies with junky software patents than the shmuck from whom the junky software patent was purchased.I seem to recall reviewing this particular piece of junk sometime in the last few years. It’s the so-called “viral detection” method, isn’t it? Where the POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN takes information that’s received and compares it to a database of “bad stuff” and if some of the information matches the list of “bad stuff” then the POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN “blocks it” or at least lets you know about it. That’s the “technology”. Just ask Richard. He knows all about it.
Malcolm the tailor is at it again.Nice “conversation.”
“The bill is aimed squarely at patent trolls..”And what’s the definition of “patent troll” again?
From the Twitter article:As the company’s former general counsel, Alex MacGillivray told me last year, â€We studied it with some pretty smart people and it seems the only thing you can do is defend it as vigorously as you can and beat the shit out of these players.â€Not bad advice. I’m all for vigorously defending against an unjustified lawsuit. However, what Twitter fails to realize is that while it is easy to outspend a small NPE and grind them into the ground, if a big corporation with a few thousand infringed patents comes knocking on your door, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle.While many of the “technology” companies are chummy with one another, all it takes is one to realize that maximizing shareholder wealth means suing your competitors (e.g., Twitter), and Twitter is in a world of hurt. When faced with a couple billion dollars worth of damages that they cannot possibly defend against, they will rue the day that they decided that their principles were more important than their shareholders.Relying upon the altruism of your business competitors is rarely a good strategy.
When faced with a couple billion dollars worth of damages that they cannot possibly defend againstHuh?
Huh?I know biotech companies don’t usually have more than a handful of patents. However, the big boys in mechanical/electrical/computer world do. Do you know how much money it would cost to attempt to defend against 1000 patents or even 100 patents?Let me introduce you to the real world — in those instances, (i) you pray the other side doesn’t want to bleed your dry and/or you (ii) attempt to rewrite the law. While (ii) is a popular option, it rarely works.
Or (iii) you sell to a deep pocket NPE so that they can assert against the competitor without risk of counterclaim.
I know biotech companies don’t usually have more than a handful of patents.Huh? What’s a “handful”, in your opinion?Do you know how much money it would cost to attempt to defend against 1000 patents or even 100 patents?That depends on whether I infringe a valid patent. I do know how much money it would cost a “big company” who tried to exort me, however. It would cost them a lot, and not just in attorney fees.You seem to be very afraid of big patent portfolios. I’m not afraid of them at all. Do you know why? Because I’m a patent attorney and I know how easy it is to document and disseminate accurate information about patent owners (big and small) who assert junk patents and try to extort people with those junk patents. There are other ways to cause companies to “lose money” besides sueing them. Lots of other ways.(ii) attempt to rewrite the law. While (ii) is a popular option, it rarely works.You could have fooled me. Seems like the laws are being re-written quite often when it comes to patents, and very rarely in a manner that makes it easier for people to assert junk and get away with it. But maybe things are different on your “real” planet.
There are other ways to cause companies to “lose money” besides sueing them. Lots of other waysOh … still living in that dreamland where consumers actually care when multi-billion dollar companies care whether or not they sue one another.You think ‘negative PR’ is going to stop a billion dollar lawsuit? Too funny. Way too funny.
You think ‘negative PR’ is going to stop a billion dollar lawsuit?Depends on how much the negative PR is going to cost.
Depends on how much the negative PR is going to cost.Really, is that the best response you have? The likes of Twitter could easily face a billion dollar ++ lawsuit from an operating company with lots of patents. So long as Twitter doesn’t get shut down (why kill the cow when you can milk it for years?), who except the FOSS-ites of the world will care?People in this country have much pressing things to worry about than when one uber-rich corporation pays a huge sum of money to another uber-rich corporation (or even a NPE). I’ve said this several times to you before, but it is worth repeating, you vastly overestimate the common man’s disdain for patents, in general, or software patents. More people like patents than dislike them. Moreover, those same people have a very low threshold as to what is patentable.
you vastly overestimate the common man’s disdain for patents, in general, or software patents. More people like patents than dislike them. Moreover, those same people have a very low threshold as to what is patentable.You have a poll on that or something? It’s pretty much the exact opposite of what I see on planet Earth, even among professional patent attorneys (the primary exceptions being those who are invested in the patent quo, and even there the feelings aren’t universal).