Supreme Court Backs Award of Overseas Patent Damages (reuters.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that companies can recover profits lost because of the unauthorized use of their patented technology abroad in a victory for Schlumberger NV, the world's largest oilfield services provider. The decision expands the ability of patent owners to recover foreign-based damages, increasing the threat posed by certain infringement lawsuits in the United States.

Internet-based companies and others had expressed concern that extending patent damages beyond national borders would expose U.S. high-technology firms to greater patent-related risks abroad. U.S. patent law generally applies only domestically, but Schlumberger said that since the law protects against infringement that occurs when components of a patented invention are supplied from the U.S. for assembly abroad, it should be fully compensated for the infringement, including any lost foreign sales. The high court agreed.

Comments

Globalization is great

[rsilvergun]

if you're a player on the global stage. Not so sure about us regular chaps though. I mean, I'm unlikely to ever have the resources to run an international lawsuit to enforce patent law but I could see getting sued by a mega corp who does. It'd be a great way to keep any upstart competitors from popping up. Let's not forget how Hollywood was founded.

Re:Globalization is great

[currently_awake]

The NSA runs a global phone/internet spying ring, and some people have suggested they occasionally hand over technology they intercept to American companies. If this is true, then American companies can steal tech, patent it, and sue the inventors to prevent them from using it.

Re:Globalization is great

[alvinrod]

The problem with removing them entirely is that it's going to be quite hard for any inventor to function independently. Without any protection by law, someone's ability to sell an invention for profit lasts only until some big player can take it apart and build it for far less due to their existing manufacturing capability and the scale of their operations.

This isn't entirely bad as it means that costs for existing goods and products will drop as there's nothing to stop anyone who thinks they can manufacture something for less from attempting to do so. However, these manufacturers don't have a lot of incentive to spend resources on new inventions since they only have a very short window to recoup that investment before a competitor starts producing it as well and they may figure that they can just wait for the competition to invent some new thing. Investment in reducing the cost of manufacturing is where money would be directed since it makes a company more competitive, and improvements in manufacturing techniques or tools can naturally be hidden from competitors.

The same goes for other fields as well. Creating a medicine becomes essentially worthless since it can be easily replicated once the chemical composition is discovered, but a surgical technique or procedure may be less difficult to emulate as the knowledge of precisely how it works is not disseminated so easily merely by the acquisition of it. Goods of all kinds become less valuable compared to services. You're probably only likely to see new types of goods, medicines, etc. arise as a result of crowd funding of some form or perhaps someone extremely wealthy wishing to cure themselves of some affliction. There will probably always be some people who will invent for the hell of it, simply because it excites them, but these people are rare.

I don't know if one of these worlds is better than another, but a lack of patents does suggest a certain tendency to hoard knowledge. Patents reward those individuals or companies that can create something new and novel (that in reality we fall short of this quite often is another matter) and there's less value in hoarding the knowledge since a lack of one means the competition can make your product should they figure out how. If it's really successful, they might even find different methods of achieving a similar outcome. Regardless, the patent eventually expires and anyone can produce the invention.

I'd be somewhat remiss to throw out the entire idea because the implementation has become horribly broken. Especially considering that there are several practical (and rather simple) steps that could be taken to fix a great deal of the problem with the patent system. I wouldn't necessary shed a tear to see it go either, but that would introduce massive amounts of change into a system that's grown up around a certain set of laws. Maybe you could argue that the longterm benefits outweigh the short term chaos, but that's not a pool I'd like to jump into without sticking a few toes in first in order to test the water.

Re:Globalization is great

[technosaurus]

Many sources say they went to Hollywood to escape Edison's patent trolls. Though that seems to need some clarification.

Re:Globalization is great

[turbidostato]

"The problem with removing them entirely is that it's going to be quite hard for any inventor to function independently."

While your argument seems to make sense, let's check it against reality.

Back in the early days of XX century, the ability to enforce patents was much less than it is today, both domestically and abroad, still, it was a period of franctic innovation in all kind of business.

Back in the 50's, business process were not patent-encumbered, but USA companies grew orders of magnitude out of better comprehension on who to optimize them.

Back in the 80's 90's software development was practically not patent-encumbered (certainly much less than today). And yet, the 80's 90's made some of the richest men on earth, at the quickest pace we've ever seen, out of humble garage investments.

So, it seems, something along your argument doesn't hold water, after all.

Judgment all you want

[DatbeDank]

If you don't have the means to enforce it or collect abroad, it's effectively useless.

Re:Judgment all you want

[thegarbz]

If you don't have the means to enforce it or collect abroad, it's effectively useless.

This isn't about collecting abroad. It's about collecting locally from US companies doing business abroad. This is about you and me going about our business in the USA. It's about you having a patent. It's about me creating a product that violates that patent and in an attempt to skirt your law selling that product somewhere else in the world but not in the USA. ... Then you suing me for it.

Re:There Goes Chinas Business Model

[scottragen]

Until other countries follow suit. Imagine if China or EU went after US companies for infringing on their patents in the US, there would be an almighty uproar about infringing on US sovereignty.

Both companies are in Houston. Why collect elsewhe

[raymorris]

Why would a company in Houston go abroad to collect a judgement from another company in Houston? ION is six miles from Schlumberger.

Here is the opinion.

[BitterOak]

The article didn't provide a link to the SCOTUS opinion, so here it is. It is an interesting split. Thomas wrote for the majority and was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagen. Gorsuch wrote the dissent, joined by Breyer.