Slashdot Mirror
Patents Don't Pay
tarball_tinkerbell sends us to the NY Times for word on a book due out next year that claims that beginning in the late 1990s, on average patents cost companies more than they earned them. A big exception was pharmaceuticals, which accounted for 2/3 of the revenues attributable to patents. The authors of the book Do Patents Work? (synopsis and sample chapters), James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer of the Boston University School of Law, have crunched the numbers and say that, especially in the IT industry, patents no longer make economic sense. Their views are less radical than those of a pair of Washington University at St. Louis economists who argue that the patent system should be abolished outright.
Even for them. An out of court settlement costs way less in terms of time and money while you can charge almost the same.
Why do you think lawyers usually prod you to settle out of court? Because it is invariably better for you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do you think lawyers usually prod you to settle out of court? Because it is invariably better for you?
It depends. If you are the plaintiff in a case prosecuted on a contingency basis in the US model it may be better for the law firm to settle early, but if you pay an hourly rate (as you will as the defendant or if you opt for the hourly rate) it is better for them to take the case to trial.
Of course the best long term plan for a law firm is to build up a reputation for success that brings clients in the door.