Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Patent Trolls
Anonymous Coward writes "Forbes is reporting that the Supreme Court has just limited the power of patent trolls to obtain permanent injunctions against infringers as a matter of course. The court has ruled that the principles of equity apply, meaning that a court considering slapping an injunction on the infringer must consider how much damage is really being done ... which in the case of EBay's Buy It Now feature, isn't much, since the company that owns this so-called patent only has it for the purposes of suing other people." From the article: "The high court's decision deals a blow to patent trolls, which are notorious for using the threat of permanent injunction to extort hefty fees in licensing negotiations as well as huge settlements from companies they have accused of infringing. Often, those settlements can be far greater than the value of the infringing technology: Recall the $612.5 million that Canada's Research in Motion forked over to patent-holding company NTP to avoid the shutting down of its popular BlackBerry service."
If they can't get simple terminology correct, how can we trust their reporting?
For those who're not following me, consider the following quote from the article:As they've written "owners of intellectual property" rather then "patent owners", the sentence actually means:This is clearly not true.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This is yet another example of the upcoming "patently" evil Supreme Court, now stacked with far-right extremists and corporatists by BushCo. No checks and balances, controlling all three branches of govern...
Hmm? What's that? This is a good thing, and slashdot likes it?
Oh.
Hooray, Supreme Court!
(The decision was unanimous, by the way.)
The problem with the "patent trolls" idea is that it's all but indistinguishable from the "small inventor with few resources" one in many cases.
This ruling does mean that if you're a small-time inventor that couldn't afford to implement your idea yourself, you can freely be ripped off by large corps that can, with impunity, since you wouldn't have made a lot of money without a major partner in any case.
Tell me again how patents are protecting the inventor against large corporations?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I guess this means my recently granted patent on "a method of maintaining a patent portfolio for the purpose of litigation and licensing" is never going to work out too well given I won't be able to the sort of injunctions I'd want against my targeted patent houses.
Well... back to the drawing board.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I keep seeing comparisons of how RIM was "abused" in this manner. However, RIM is no stranger to using the courts to extort licensing fees either.
Granted, I think professional patent trollers ought to be shut down, but using RIM as an example of a "victim" in this process is a bit disingenius.
I'm not sure what you mean - but if you're saying Creative was another "Patent Troll", then I don't think you're correct.
Patent troll companies generally do not produce technology, just sit on patent portfolios. While Creative's suit has no merit, Creative have been selling mp3 players for far longer then Apple has (they even bought out a 'nano' branded model first!).
Oh - and there's another big patent threat to the iPod out there - the click wheel patent... and the company who owns that patent produces real (if crap) technology products too.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
But doesn't the ruling also hurt bona fide inventors, not to mention the many universities that fund their research and own the patents? To be sure, it plainly erodes the power that has been typically bestowed by a patent. Patent law unambiguously grants owners of intellectual property the same rights as regular property holders, including the right to exclude others from using their property. But the law also clearly states that injunctions "may"--not "shall"--be issued "in accordance with the principles of equity."
The interpretation of one word does not necessarily hurt a patent owner. It simply means the court has discretion to order an injuction, not that it is required to. If you're a legitimate inventor and you have a clear-cut case of infringement then this does not apply to you, but if you're a patent troll, only in it to bilk companies out of money enforcing patents you'd left mouldering in a drawer, then you may be out of luck unless you can prove your case. Frankly, this is the best thing to happen to the patent system in a while.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
This is positive even if it hurts the small inventor. This person I know works as a copyright lawyer. Coincidentally for Microsoft. Her job is to find vague ideas that have not been patented and patent them in as many countries as possible with the broadest most vague wording that could possibly hold up in court. Microsoft's idea is that 20 years down the road each patent will pay off itself 100 fold. So why is it okay to do something that hurts the small investor? Because now the small investor can't be sued when they come out with a breakthrough product simply because it infringes upon some BS patent held by a company with zero intentions of ever doing anything with it... well, except for using it to hold a small inventor hostage and take all his/her possessions.
All you need now is a new law, allowing patents to be annulled early if they are being misused. Physical property can be confiscated if it is misused, and proponents of the term "intellectual property" like to think that ideas can be owned like physical property, so why the hell not?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I was under the impression that EBay's Buy It Now was something users had been clamoring for from day one. I know I always thought, "It'd be nice to let someone pay immediately instead of dragging this out". It's basically an extension of "$XXX.XX OBO" into the online world.
Obviously, that's a bogus patent. Appending in the context of an online system shouldn't make it automagically patentworthy. Perhaps we should not allow ANY injunctions until the patent has been further reviewed by the USPTO. If the USPTO decides to revoke or invalidate a patent before the case goes to court, wouldn't that be better than letting it go to a high-profile court case and then having to read 35 stories about it on Slashdot?
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
"This subtle change doesn't destroy the shackles of our broken patent system, but it certainly loosens the bonds that tie innovation down. And perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates that the Supreme Court understands how oppressive the current legal system has become with respect to patent litigation. This decision is, perhaps, a portent of how the Court might feel about several other important patent issues it is schedulued to hear."
From Right to Create
Could read either way. On balance, the abuse of the patent system is harmful and needs to be addressed. That should be handled, however, by legislation, not litigation. Allowing the common law to change the patent system may briefly serve the greater good, but it is ultimately a bad thing, m-kay. Sadly, we're sort of left with no other options. Our esteemed reps in Washington are utterly obsessed with winning votes and power so they can ... enact policies to further secure their votes and power. One begins to wonder if term limits might have been a good idea after all.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
There are many other possibilities, but overall they're all a little brighter from the inventor/innovator's point-of-view (heck, I might even dust off some of those old ideas I've been figuring someone'd been sitting on the patent for...and I'm a classic cynic!)
**I know, I know, this is assuming a fairness that in all probability won't actually show up in court...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
I thought the whole point of getting a patent was so that you were the only one that could legally create instances of your invention. Now it seems you can get a patent, and your competition can go ahead and use it anyway?
If you read the article, you'll find this has nothing to do with the validity of patents or eventual compensation.
What it does mean is that you can't extort an inflated price for your "technology" by getting the infringer shut down while the legal proceedings take place if you are not somehow actually suffering damages by its use.
The legal process still occurs, and if you have a valid patent that is being infringed upon, you will win. The difference is that if your never-implemented-obvious-idea gets tossed out, the "infringer" didn't have to cave in to your demands or suffer huge business losses while the proceedings occured.
Makes perfect sense to me.
- Roach
For the most part it is a pretty cut and dry decision stating that a 4-part based on the principles of equality should be applied before an injunction is granted. Specifically:There is an interesting part of Thomas opinion:This basically lays out that just because a patent owner has no intention of selling or making the product does not mean that they automatically fail the 4-part test. Presumably if they also have no intention of licensing the patent to someone they would fail the test, but this isn't specifically said in the decision. Might be something to watch for in the future.
Off to read the two concurring opinions.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".