Slashdot Mirror
East Texas Judge Throws Out 168 Patent Cases
Earthquake Retrofit writes: Ars Technica is reporting that an East Texas judge has thrown out 168 patent cases in one fell swoop. The judge's order puts the most litigious patent troll of 2014, eDekka LLC, out of business. The ruling comes from a surprising source: U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the East Texas judge who has been criticized for making life extra-difficult for patent defendants. Gilstrap, who hears more patent cases than any other U.S. judge, will eliminate about 10 percent of his entire patent docket by wiping out the eDekka cases.
The judge in question has learned a lot about patent law (he's only been a district judge for 4 years). He threw out the cases, and invited the defendants to file for attorney fees.
The threat of having to pay attorney fees if they lose will stop patent trolls dead. Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute will take on a new meaning when you can get the millions back.
This particular judge invited defendants to file to have the troll pay their fees. That puts this troll, who is 10% of the problem, out of business.
It wouldn't take too many cases in which Intellectual Ventures has to pay the people they sue before IV would run out of money and be gone. They are responsible for around 30% of the trolling.
Four companies file 90% of the patent cases. Of the remaining 10%, many are legitimate disputes, so well over 90% of the trolling is those four entities. Put those four out of business and you've pretty much solved the problem of patent trolls. (And by making it costly for those four, others will be discouraged from attempting it).
The original purpose and function of patents was a method of rewarding people the King favored. How it ended up as an institution separate from the King relates more to attempts by the Parliament to limit the King's powers than to reasoned debate about the function of patents.
The concepts of patents as a method of motivating people to publish trade secrets was an after-the-fact rationalization. Even so, it also helps to realize that for a long time patents were really only limited to methods of manufacture, not usages. It's easy to keeps methods of manufacturing secret.
Which is why until the mid 20th century in non-Anglophone countries you couldn't, for example, patent a chemical or its use, but only the method of manufacture. This is one reason why the German and French chemical industries were so inventive and competitive compared to American companies in the first half of the 20th century. But then they got greedy and wanted the same protections their American counterparts got.
The trade secret rationalization doesn't work very well in the modern era. It's much more difficult to keep manufacturing methods secret. And patents are so broad that that for the most part they protect things which aren't even remotely in dangerous of being kept secret.
Which is why economists today favor return on capital investment as a rationale for the patent system. Like the trade secret rationale it seems logical on its face, but doesn't hold up to empirical data. There's no less innovation in the increasingly small areas where patent protection is non-existent than in patent-protectable areas. There may be more investment, but that's the tail wagging the dog in an analysis. _Output_, not investment money, is the relevant metric.
People forget that the beauty of a free market system is that with enough wealthy capitalists, the necessary investment tends to happen even without government protections. Indeed, _especially_ without government protections like patents and copyrights. Once you start adding government monopoly rents, the money will chase those protections rather than seeking out truly innovative ideas. Without government protections it's not like capitalists will just sit on their money. Inflation provides all the incentive you need for capitalists to get out their and hustle, looking for profitable opportunities.
So then, you DO remember the day you decided "hey, I can be heterosexual or I can be homosexual, hmm ... hmm ... yeah I guess I'll just be hetero"?
Actually? Kind of, sort of, yes? There was a time where I was curious about what my sexuality might be and was open enough to investigate such. It turns out that kissing a man is not as much fun as I'd hoped. So, yeah... I quite clearly remember having a very similar conversation with myself and with others - I was also very drunk throughout that period of my life. But yes, I suppose, I figured I could prefer either one gender or both and, as it turns out, I'm kind of partial to the womenfolk.
I might have an odd fascination with transgendered folk, however. I mean, yeah, they're the gender they identify with - right? So, no, I'm not gay but I'm pretty damned open to new experiences or at least trying them.
Hmm...
Discussing my sexuality on Slashdot...
Expecting serious replies...
While in another state...
Miles from home...
In a city...
Filled with hookers.
Filled with loose women...
Might even have some transsexuals...
Plenty of money...
Sitting in my hotel room...
Using VNC to connect to my home computer...
Compiling shit just 'cause I like the scrolling text - sort of - don't need to compile it...
More compute devices than pairs of shoes...
More compute devices than suits...
Fucking around on Slashdot...
Talking about my sexuality...
On Slashdot...
I need help. *sighs*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."