Slashdot Mirror
Patent 'Death Squad' System Upheld by US Supreme Court (bloomberg.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an administrative review system that has helped Google, Apple and other companies invalidate hundreds of issued patents. From a report: The justices, voting 7-2, said Tuesday a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board that critics call a patent "death squad" wasn't unconstitutionally wielding powers that belong to the courts. Silicon Valley companies have used the system as a less-expensive way to ward off demands for royalties, particularly from patent owners derided as "trolls" because they don't use their patents to make products. Drugmakers and independent inventors complain that it unfairly upends what they thought were established property rights. "It came down to this: Is the patent office fixing its own mistakes or is the government taking property?" said Wayne Stacy, a patent lawyer with Baker Botts. "They came down on the side of the patent office fixing its own mistakes." The ruling caused shares to drop in companies whose main source of revenue -- their patents -- are under threat from challenges. VirnetX, which is trying to protect almost $1 billion in damages it won against Apple, dropped as much as 12 percent. The patent office has said its patents are invalid in a case currently before an appeals court.
I would add that naturally occurring substances, DNA sequences, genes, etc are not patentable.
They might as well be saying, "We hide our taxes outside the USA [abusing the system], so closing the tax loophole will negatively affect us!"
Not a single tear.
Before spending $10kUS (average cost to get a patent) the APPLICANT should consider if it's a smart way to spend money.
Spending money on shysters has no guaranteed ROI. Don't expect a god damn lawyer to tell you: 'I'll take your money, but it will be for nothing'. Rather the opposite, like asking your barber if you need a haircut, answer is always yes.
Getting the patent gets you a right to take it to court. Not a guarantee the patent is valid.
Invalidating a patent is no more taking a property than losing a appeal. Yes, you've spent money, but nobody ever told you it was the end of the process.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Agreed. You pay to apply - there's no guarantee you'll be awarded the patent, and you don't pay any more if you are. Nor do you get a refund if it isn't.
Now, if you bought such a patent from someone else then you have paid for it. But perhaps you should have done more research to make sure it was a VALID patent first, instead of assuming that the patent office is infallible, or at least that any challengers would face such an expensive legal process that they'd rather let you fleece them than go through it. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever you bought the patent from.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Just end patents, much easier.
The patent should not be on the chemical produced (it exists in mature), but in the mehtod used to create it. If someone comes up with a better method (via whatever metric you want), then it will benefit the inventor. And if the process can be carried out by anyone with a still, then why do you deserve a monopoly?
The homily is "build a better moustrap" niot "patent the idea of catching rodents or other small pests for later disposal".