A bill recently passed by the Senate will make it a little more attractive for third parties to petition the PTO for reexamination of... uh... crappy patents like this one. Under the current law, a third-party requester couldn't appeal the results of a reexamination, meaning that calling for a reexamination only strengthened the patent, because the PTO almost never reverses itself in reexam proceedings. Thus, if you call for reexam, you lose, and if you are subsequently sued under the patent, in court the presumption of validity is strengthened for the reexamined patent.
Under the new bill, a third party requester can appeal the results of the reexam, meaning that the PTO is more likely to be careful on reexam; the appeals court loves to reverse the PTO. This makes PTO reexamination a much more attractive alternative to competitors facing a patent that they think is bunk.
I believe the $50/spam figure is specified in the California law, not an "actual" damages figure computed by valuing the resources lost to each spam message. Similarly the $25k/day is a statutory cap imposed on the damage award.
Slashdot Mirror
A bill recently passed by the Senate will make it a little more attractive for third parties to petition the PTO for reexamination of ... uh ... crappy patents like this one. Under the current law, a third-party requester couldn't appeal the results of a reexamination, meaning that calling for a reexamination only strengthened the patent, because the PTO almost never reverses itself in reexam proceedings. Thus, if you call for reexam, you lose, and if you are subsequently sued under the patent, in court the presumption of validity is strengthened for the reexamined patent.
Under the new bill, a third party requester can appeal the results of the reexam, meaning that the PTO is more likely to be careful on reexam; the appeals court loves to reverse the PTO. This makes PTO reexamination a much more attractive alternative to competitors facing a patent that they think is bunk.
I believe the $50/spam figure is specified in the California law, not an "actual" damages figure computed by valuing the resources lost to each spam message. Similarly the $25k/day is a statutory cap imposed on the damage award.