Supreme Court Clears Patent Invalidity Suits

The Empiricist writes "The United States Supreme Court has cleared the way for entities to sue over the validity of a patent — even while paying user fees to the patent holder. The eight-to-one Medimmune v. Genetech decision, written by Justice Scalia, held that by paying royalties to a patent holder, one does not necessarily waive the right to challenge the validity of the patent."

Comments

Re:Good

[s20451]

yet we hardly see anyone but patent trolls and megacorps doing anything with patents, so anything which weakens them is for the best.

That's because patents only make the news when you get sued. I take it that you are not an inventor. Much of the value of a startup technology company is contained in its patent portfolio, and that portfolio is what makes it attractive for purchase by larger companies.

If you're just a lone inventor and you have that good an idea, you're probably better off making a prototype and marketing the idea directly, anyhow, rather than getting patents.

There's no reason why you can't do both. In fact, if you don't do both, you're an idiot who is taking unnecessary risks on behalf of your investors.

Re:Good

[Omnifarious]

I suspect that this is an error, and that the real value lies in the expertise and ability of the lone inventor or small company to create the technology in question. It's really interesting how business shies away from valuing people and expertise over some sort of even very nebulous, intangible and somewhat imaginary asset. I think there are some powerful blinders in operation somewhere.