Slashdot Mirror

The argument against the abuse of standard-essential patents seems fairly strong to me, especially as such misuse can significantly and needlessly increase costs to consumers. I don't see that there's necessarily much difference between a standard-essential patent and a former trademark that has become generic through widespread use.

Perhaps we're at the start of an international, system-wide rebellion by the courts against the excesses of the smartphone wars. I certainly hope so. The mobile patent wars are out of control. Most of these disputes belong in the marketplace, and should be resolved there, rather than wasting scarce court resources by using them as a proxy for market competition.

One unfortunate drawback to such a strong, liberal patent system is the plague of overly broad patents that tend to contribute to the growing "patent thicket." Regrettably, the Bilski decision seems to have done little to discourage or limit these.

This is a landmark case whose real importance revolves around policy, rather than hard science. In my opinion, any decision as to whether to permit gene patents can only be satisfactorily resolved by considering their effects on society at large.

So another mega-corporate "partnership" has been born from this patent litigation. Doubtless such an arrangement will benefit both Yahoo! and Facebook; but I predict that consumers will eventually be the losers in this deal.

While in general I think it's fine for companies to go the route that works and pursue patent enforcement actions, the issue changes when it comes to standards-essential patents. Excessive import bans and patent litigation in this area have the potential to substantially -- and unnecessarily -- increase the costs to consumers. It will be interesting to see what (if anything) happens as a result of the UN talks.

Only in the world of patent litigation is being less "cool" considered an asset, rather than a liability.

Not to condone potential patent infringement on the part of Motorola or any other company, but my response is: good for Posner. The mobile patent wars are out of control. Most of these disputes belong in the marketplace, and should be resolved there, rather than wasting scarce court resources by using them as a proxy for market competition.

Certainly, you can't deny -- although some in the anti-patent crowd still try -- that the potential for profit serves, and will always serve, as a major incentive for innovation. The patent industry is now a significant engine of global economic growth.

No matter what one's opinion of market competition and/or patent enforcement, there is one rather telling fact in this case: reportedly, it came out in court that not even Samsung's own legal counsel could tell the difference, visually, between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. This seems to me to present a pretty clear case for patent litigation.

This patent does seem surprising, in that it appears on its face to be a departure from Apple's usual preference for surveillance of users. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this patent ultimately were used as an addition to the dataveillance arsenal.

I predict that, should this patent result in a product, it will be a very unpopular one.

Although I can see how a product based on this patent would appeal to advertisers, it does not appeal to me. I want to decide, rather than have corporations decide, what products I might want to buy. Plus I don't feel comfortable with the thought of corporations storing my emotional life in a database. That seems like a violation of privacy.

This patent seems to me to protect the IP rights on a product that simply makes life unnecessarily more costly and difficult for a generation of already-cash-strapped students. Is it not enough that, due to an exponential rise in tuition, increased costs, and global recession, most students in the US are lucky to be able to attend school at all, much less purchase books that they might not even need? Moreover, potentially putting this demographic on the hook for IP infringement simply does not seem justifiable.

Considering the media attention that this patent case is receiving, I would expect this issue to be resolved in Maya's favor; her parents are doing the smart thing by launching a PR campaign. Hopefully, this is a legal battle that will be resolved by the politics of public opinion.

Though of course it's completely legal for companies to pursue injunctive measures against their competition, I am ambivalent; is it ethical for corporations to use patent infringement merely as an anti-competitive tactic, or should these disputes be settled in the marketplace, where they belong?

It looks like Google has been making up for lost time in patent acquisition, especially after its failed Nortel patent bid. While the new IP assets may ultimately serve Google well, nevertheless it's too bad that the company has to engage in an all-out patent war, simply in order for the company and its prized product to survive.

One of the few helpful measures that I see contained in this legislation is a provision requiring a showing of "competitive injury" in order to obtain standing in a false marking suit. This should prove effective in reducing (if not eliminating) the new scourge of false marking patent trolls. And, doubtless, those at the USPTO are looking forward to a probable increase in fees. But, from what I can tell, the rest of this bill is mostly a wash.

Wow, I kind of wish I were one of the listed inventors on this patent. Although it may seem a bit goofy as presented, I think this technology has the potential for many significant and groundbreaking uses.

I agree with Pettitt's idea of implementing a shorter term for software patents. Instead of the usual costly, 20-year patent, why not consider an inexpensive, limited, 5-to-10-year software patent that reflects software's low overhead and rapid obsolescence? Some other countries offer multi-tiered patent systems; I think it's time the U.S. started discussions in that area.

Snyder is correct in that the tech patent wars are going nuclear. But at least one group will survive the fracas unscathed, or better: lawyers. If anyone out there is thinking about going back to school, now might be a decent time to invest in a J.D. :)

It's up to a court of law to determine the validity of the patent at issue, its claims, and the facts of the specific case. It is annoying, however, that it has become increasingly common for patent trolls and other patent enforcers to get away with filing such "bare-bones" complaints. Spotify should probably file immediately for reexamination of PacketVideo's patent.

Considering the company's bidding strategy on the Nortel patents, one has to wonder whether Google was ever very serious about its bid. If so, hopefully it learned its lesson: next time, instead of Pi, go with Feigenbaum's constant ($4,669,201,609).

This is indeed a troubling trend -- the fact that MacroSolve and Lodsys are filing patent enforcement actions against one-person app development shops, rather than against the "deep-pockets" targets like Google and Apple, does not bode well for the future of innovation. Such lawsuits will inevitably discourage some small-scale developers from continuing their work, which will in turn deprive consumers of technological advances. What a shame.

The increasingly complex web that's developed from all of the mobile patent enforcement actions is truly mind-boggling. What's more, it all seems rather wasteful, when one considers the fact that the likely result of all these lawsuits will be settlements and cross-licensing deals.

It looks to me like i4i's got the upper hand in this patent litigation, and not only because of the U.S. arguing as amicus on its behalf. I've always thought i4i had the better arguments, not to mention the legal precedent and reliance issues on its side.

LOL, Apple's countersuit ably illustrates the Golden Rule of patent litigation: Sue not, lest ye be sued.

It seems to me that a SCOTUS ruling for Microsoft in this case would likely have numerous significant repercussions for patent litigation -- for instance, (1) it could leave many more patent holders vulnerable to harassment by excessive litigation from large corporations; (2) it would probably serve as the basis for invalidating many patents post-issuance; and (3) it could give the FTC more leverage in ending reverse-payment settlement agreements. I think this is a case in which the Court should very seriously and carefully the policy basis of the current law and the consequences if it is overturned.

If I were you I would consult a patent litigation attorney or other patent professional, to learn more about your legal options. Sometimes a request for reexamination can invalidate an issued patent. If a challenger can prove that a patent holder didn't actually "invent" the item it has patented, then that may serve as a basis for invalidation of a patent. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that you can sue on the basis of patent infringement, since you never patented your program. But there are ways to challenge issued patents. And, in the future, you might consider applying for patents on your inventions. By the way, Microsoft's acts are not "patent troll" behavior. In common usage of the term, a "patent troll" is a company that doesn't make its own products, but purchases patents owned by inventors, and then sues (usually large) corporations that have used the technology protected by the patents it purchased.

If I were you I would consult a patent litigation attorney or other patent professional, to learn more about your legal options. Sometimes a request for reexamination can invalidate an issued patent. If a challenger can prove that a patent holder didn't actually "invent" the item it has patented, then that may serve as a basis for invalidation of a patent. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that you can sue on the basis of patent infringement, since you never patented your program. But there are ways to challenge issued patents. And, in the future, you might consider applying for patents on your inventions. By the way, Microsoft's acts are not "patent troll" behavior. In common usage of the term, a "patent troll" is a company that doesn't make its own products, but purchases patents owned by inventors, and then sues (usually large) corporations that have used the technology protected by the patents it purchased.

Now that everyone's jumping on the NPE bandwagon, being an NPE (or "patent troll") has almost become downright respectable lately. There is one reason that the NPE business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay.

Now that everyone's jumping on the NPE bandwagon, being an NPE (or "patent troll") has almost become downright respectable lately. There is one reason that the NPE business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay.

Indeed, patent litigation has become almost "de rigeur" among the tech heavyweights. Two resulting concerns are, of course, (1) issues of antitrust, and (2) actual innovation getting sort shrift in favor of, as some have put it, "the biggest patent patent portfolio." Thank goodness USPTO Director David Kappos has reportedly made a commitment to maintaining high patent quality, in the midst of this patent arms race. Let's hope he and his agency stick to their guns.

It's a mistake to insist -- as do some patent opponents -- that increased patent issuance can necessarily be equated with decreased patent quality. USPTO Director David Kappos has implemented some creative programs and pragmatic approaches that appear already to have gone far in improving efficiency and morale at the patent office. He seems to have earned the high opinion in which he is generally held, and he deserves credit for his accomplishments.

Although some gene patent proponents argue that this patent litigation is about legal precedent and reliance, I honestly think that this is one of those issues that is largely about one's politics and policy. Whether or not human genes are legally patentable is a question rather like the "if a tree falls in the forest" hypo. I've noticed that most biotech proponents, in particular, base their pro-patenting contentions on policy arguments, rather than on legal ones -- perhaps because there is no real legal answer. That being the case, although I'd like to read a Supreme Court opinion deciding this issue, perhaps this is really one for Congress to deal with.

Considering the fact that virtual currency is, at this point, pretty obvious, even if Zynga managed to obtain a patent, it might have difficulty actually enforcing it, if patent litigation ever resulted from this or a similar invention.

Bad news for NPEs (patent trolls). The disclosure of the results of this study likely weakens their bargaining position, as more defendants learn that NPEs have a disadvantage at trial. It's starting to look like the ITC -- which has proven itself quite NPE-friendly, of late -- may be would-be trolls' best bet.

There are a few inaccuracies in the NetworkWorld article. The applicable test in the Bilski patent litigation is the "machine OR transformation" test. An invention doesn't have to include both, in order to be patent-eligible. Also, I don't think the machine involved in the test has to be "specifically invented" for a certain process. That's why software has remained patent-eligible; as long as some machine -- e.g., a computer -- is used in the process, then any software is potentially patentable. OR, if a process is transformative, then it may also be patent-eligible.

It's nice (though at this point not unexpected) to see new USPTO Director David Kappos adopting yet another measure to increase transparency and efficiency in patent law. As to the software patent issue, the Supreme Court (rather obliquely) ruled in the Bilski patent litigation that software may be patented. Since software patents are therefore neither illegal nor unconstitutional, it seems to me that it's up to innovators to decide whether or not they will attempt to obtain such IP protection. It's not the job of the government to dictate the limitation or expansion of such rights.

I suspect that someone like Paul Allen would not have filed this kind of patent infringement suit unless he thought he had a pretty good chance of winning. And, of course, he can afford top-notch legal counsel. My main question is, will Mr. Allen's pledge to give away most of his fortune apply to the (likely pretty hefty) damages if he prevails in this case?

Gosling rightly points out that, whether or not one approves of the patent law system, it is nonetheless the governing system, and anyone wishing to compete or survive in contemporary corporate culture must incorporate IP protection into the company strategy. Not only are patents critical defensively, but they can also serve as quite a powerful (and often lucrative) asset if patent enforcement measures ever need to be taken.

Given that this kind of personalized technology appears to be one of the biggest new trends, Apple could stand to make quite a pretty penny in future patent enforcement on this invention.

Funny, in all of the media reports about this, nothing that I have read has referred to Oracle as a "patent troll." However, you can be sure that, if a smaller company had filed a patent enforcement suit to protect patents that it had recently acquired, everyone would immediately denounce it as a troll. It shows that there is a pretty strong double standard, and that a troll is in the eye of the beholder.

There is one reason that the NPE ("patent troll") business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Notably, it is almost invariably such multinational corporations that complain most about NPEs -- because, before the latter became so prevalent, greedy corporations could more often infringe SMEs' IP with impunity. Although abuse of the system should be condemned, most so-called trolls do nothing worse than Wall Street traders, for instance. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay. And that may be a good thing.

The Court's Bilski ruling is actually growing on me. Nevertheless, it's pretty easy to see that the issue of defining the limits of an "abstract idea" will likely be the focus of much patent litigation in the near future. I do rather wish that the Court had made more of an attempt to address this. Lacking guidance from above, lower courts will have to address the issue case-by-case, and we'll likely end up with some kind of piecemeal, undefined, "I know it when I see it" means of determining which inventions are too abstract. I wouldn't be surprised if the issue ends up going back up to the Supreme Court again very soon.

This could be quite a valuable resource. I continue to be impressed by the actions of USPTO Director David Kappos, who actually seems to understand that providing greater accessibility and services to the public may, in turn, contribute to increased efficiency and improved good will for the USPTO -- and for patent law itself. The only thing about this that gives me pause is Google's involvement. Ever since I learned that they've enlisted the help of the NSA in their operations, I'm a little wary of any measures that could give them even greater power over data. Add to that their recent legal troubles stemming from the "accidental" collection of WiFi information. But at least in this case, Google is disseminating information, rather than collecting it ... one hopes.

Does anyone have any information on the status of the ETC Group's challenge to the patent on Synthia? I find this issue fascinating -- in part because in the future, biotech companies could potentially find a way around the "naturally occurring" limitations on patenting organisms by creating synthetic versions of the organisms, instead. This could have far-reaching effects on patent law in general, the Myriad case in particular, and many other biotech issues ... not to mention bioethics, the future of humankind, etc. Please keep us informed on further developments!

There is one reason that the NPE ("patent troll") business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Notably, it is almost invariably such multinational corporations that complain most about NPEs -- because, before the latter became so prevalent, greedy corporations could more often infringe SMEs' IP with impunity. Although abuse of the system should be condemned, most so-called trolls do nothing worse than Wall Street traders, for instance. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay. And that may be a good thing.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-troll

Like it or not, I think patent pools are a progressive measure that will only gain in popularity in the near future, particularly as the benefits of such arrangements become increasingly apparent. Of course, as with any system, patent pools have flaws that will have to be addressed, particularly at the beginning. But overall, I think that they're a great option, and present a potential net benefit for the area of patent law.

Thanks for backing that up with proof. No wait, that's what I'm doing.

http://www.patenthawk.com/enforce.htm
http://www.generalpatent.com/faqs/when-enforce-patent-rights