The First District Kangaroo Court of AppleInsider hereby finds the finds the United States District Court of East Texas guilty of something. After we string them up we will decide what they did wrong. Maybe. Not that it's really necessary.
This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.
Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.
He actually did neither. Edison essentially copied the work of Joseph Swan in England.
As long as they give the U.S. all its assets presently in Texas, and/or assumes its portion of the national debt.
Texas pays in $225B in taxes to the US Federal government. For every dollar paid to the Federal government, Texas only gets back 94 cents.
I don't think you want Texas to secede.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 214,000 net new jobs were created in the United States from August 2009 to August 2010. Texas created 119,000 jobs during the same period. If every state in the country had performed as well, we?d have created about 1.5 million jobs nationally during the past year
I also agree. Although it could stiffle innovation, so maybe a patent that lasts 5-10 years and can't be renewed so that a company is given credit for what they created and allowed to use it.
I think Apple will appeal because even the small amount could have long term affects to the bottom line. In other words, will it cover the continued sale? what about new products? Although, it could be part of the terms of the agreement.
Perfect example of modern reporting - this is stuff you shouldn't have to guess at.
That's a horrible analogy Jeff. Copying files from a computer to a connected device is a lot like downloading; whilst controlling a computer with a mouse is not even remotely like uploading?
(The key would be the copying of files...)
Why don't people on the Internet simply acknowledge when other folks make a good/valid point, and instead come up with silly justifications to defend their (often somewhat silly) positions?
A federal jury has decided against Apple in a patent infringement suit accusing Apple of violating two patents related to downloadable playlists for iPods.
Bloomberg reported on Friday that, according to the lawyer for plaintiff Personal Audio, a jury found that patents were indeed infringed on and upheld their validity. Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos were also included in the original suit, but they had settled out of court last year.
Personal Audio, a patent licensing company, sued Apple in 2009 asking for $84 million in damages. Apple was accused of violating U.S. patents 6,199,076 "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller" and 7,509,178 "Audio Program Distribution and Playback System."
The inventions describe an audio player that "can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list," report author Susan Decker wrote. Apple asserted that the patents were invalid, while also claiming that it wasn't using the inventions.
Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents noted that Apple has "little incentive to appeal this decision," as the $8 million damages award is relatively insubstantial for the company, which has more than $60 billion in cash reserves. However, Apple could announce an intent to file an appeal in hopes of negotiating a discounted settlement with the company.
Mueller also compared the case to an ongoing case between iOS developers and Lodsys. The company filed suit in May, alleging that iOS developers have violated patents related to in-app purchasing. Apple has filed a motion to intervene in the case and maintains that the developers are covered under an licensing agreement it signed with Lodsys.
Like Personal Audio, Lodsys is a non-practicing entity that generates income from patent licenses. Both companies also chose to file their cases in East Texas, a district known for favoring so-called "patent trolls."
Apple recently paid $2 billion for a collection of 4G wireless networking patents from Canadian telecommunications company Nortel in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage in the smartphone race. As patent suits have ramped up in recent years, Apple has become the world's most-sued
Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
You understand that patents don't enforce themselves right? To enforce them requires a lawsuit, a very expensive one generally, which puts it well outside the means of most individuals. The easiest way an individual can profit from a patent is by selling it, or by granting an exclusive license to it - which would amount to the same thing - and would fall afoul of your hypothetical draconian regulations.
No falling afoul of regulations if it is sold or licensed--you can sell or license your patent to anyone who is willing to pay. Seller still gets his cash. But the buyer would actually have to use it. If buyer doesn't utilize patent within prescribed period it becomes null and void--worthless. If a licensee doesn't use it, so what, owner still owns patent. Onus is on buyers to actually use patents instead of trading them.
Now, if you are holding and using a patent and someone infringes on it, nothing changes. You still go to court to enforce.
Are you saying that the only way the "little guy" can make money on a patent is to become a patent troll?
It's about to get worse if President Obama gets the "patent reform" bill he keeps demanding. Right now we have a "first to invent" system meaning if you can prove you invented something first, you get the patent.
Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.
This bill has major bi-partisan support, and has more Republicans voting for it than Democrats so far. Republicans have the numbers to shut it down but haven't. So wouldn't be as fair to say that the bill is being pushed on the President rather than to say he is is demanding it?
Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.
Big companies already file and amend and amend and amend again as a way to block competitors and extend the effective term of a patent.
Sounds interesting and logical, but is there specific evidence that first to file is damaging like you say it is? As the US is the lone holdout on first to invent, so it would seem like there should be plenty of information on this. I've looked at a dozen sites and hadn't found any clear facts of consequences backed by evidence, it all looks like supposition. It seems very odd in all the articles I've seen that the results of any other country's switching is never referenced. I would also think that proving that you're first to invent is a pretty tough thing to do, but that isn't addressed very well in the articles either.
No falling afoul of regulations if it is sold or licensed--you can sell or license your patent to anyone who is willing to pay. Seller still gets his cash. But the buyer would actually have to use it. If buyer doesn't utilize patent within prescribed period it becomes null and void--worthless.
Ok, you're reframing your idea from banning selling to invalidating patents that aren't used by the owning company, which is a different idea, though still not helpful. There are several problems with that, First off it introduces a huge and messy question, what is a product?
Can ARM patent anything? They don't have any physical product, they don't have any software product, their product is a design. Is a product a product if nobody buys it? How many people need to? What happens when a patent owner becomes bankrupt and ceases production of its products? Do they become invalid? Introducing poorly defined concepts into law is a recipe for massively expensive litigation, and would result only in further consolidation of patents into rich firms.
Finally your solution doesn't solve the problem. Terrible patents like 1-click would still exist because Amazon created and used it, so that's all great in your system.
The problem with obvious patents isn't that their made by trolls, the problem is that they're obvious. The way to fix them is to tighten up patents needs to come by getting legal recognition that 'obvious' means something.
A great example is the linked list. There's really no doubt at this point that if computers were invented right now I could get a patent on linked lists. But linked lists are massively obvious to anybody who works in computers, many of us invented them for ourselves before we ever found that they had a name. The problem is when a completely new domain appears, concepts that are 'obvious' to people who work in that domain can seem novel to the rest of the world that doesn't.
A lot of Apple's multitouch patents probably come into this category. Apple will almost certainly succeed in defending them, because the current standard for obvious is so low - but it's very questionable that it should.
The First District Kangaroo Court of AppleInsider hereby finds the finds the United States District Court of East Texas guilty of something. After we string them up we will decide what they did wrong. Maybe. Not that it's really necessary.
This court is adjourned.
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
Really. I have a problem with vague and uninformed opinions leading to a lynch mob mentality, which is fully in evidence here. I can't claim any great knowledge of the issues and deficiencies of the current patent system, let alone the role played in it by the federal courts, but I can see that nobody here does either. I can also distinguish between informed, rational discussion and emotional spews.
Ok, you're reframing your idea from banning selling to invalidating patents that aren't used by the owning company, which is a different idea, though still not helpful. There are several problems with that, First off it introduces a huge and messy question, what is a product?
Can ARM patent anything? They don't have any physical product, they don't have any software product, their product is a design. Is a product a product if nobody buys it? How many people need to? What happens when a patent owner becomes bankrupt and ceases production of its products? Do they become invalid? Introducing poorly defined concepts into law is a recipe for massively expensive litigation, and would result only in further consolidation of patents into rich firms.
Finally your solution doesn't solve the problem. Terrible patents like 1-click would still exist because Amazon created and used it, so that's all great in your system.
The problem with obvious patents isn't that their made by trolls, the problem is that they're obvious. The way to fix them is to tighten up patents needs to come by getting legal recognition that 'obvious' means something.
A great example is the linked list. There's really no doubt at this point that if computers were invented right now I could get a patent on linked lists. But linked lists are massively obvious to anybody who works in computers, many of us invented them for ourselves before we ever found that they had a name. The problem is when a completely new domain appears, concepts that are 'obvious' to people who work in that domain can seem novel to the rest of the world that doesn't.
A lot of Apple's multitouch patents probably come into this category. Apple will almost certainly succeed in defending them, because the current standard for obvious is so low - but it's very questionable that it should.
Thanks for the thoughtful (and respectful) reply. I still don't know that I agree with you, but you've given me food for thought. I do take your point that this is massively complex.
Others please note that posters can profoundly disagree with one another without stooping to cheap shots and gratuitous insults.
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
Really. I have a problem with vague and uninformed opinions leading to a lynch mob mentality, which is fully in evidence here. I can't claim any great knowledge of the issues and deficiencies of the current patent system, let alone the role played in it by the federal courts, but I can see that nobody here does either. I can also distinguish between informed, rational discussion and emotional spews.
You make a good point, Doc, but aren't you also sidestepping Jeff's point? You make the point that lynch mob mentality is evident (granted), but when he offers evidence to support those feelings you don't acknowledge it. Might be worth reading his link before concluding that nobody here has any knowledge about the issue at hand.
You make a good point, Doc, but aren't you also sidestepping Jeff's point? You make the point that lynch mob mentality is evident (granted), but when he offers evidence to support those feelings you don't acknowledge it. Might be worth reading his link before concluding that nobody here has any knowledge about the issue at hand.
I recall reading that article years ago. It provides little evidence to support the claims that this court is somehow fundamentally biased in favor of patent holders. They seem to do somewhat better in this court mainly (apparently) because the judge keeps things moving. Maybe some believe that courts, judges and juries are (or should be) machines that churn out identical results nationwide. That has never been the case in our justice system, or any other for that matter. As we can see here, some would stick a bomb under any court that returns a verdict that they don't like for some reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason. This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
I recall reading that article years ago. It provides little evidence to support the claims that this court is somehow fundamentally biased in favor of patent holders. They seem to do somewhat better in this court mainly (apparently) because the judge keeps things moving. Maybe some believe that courts, judges and juries are (or should be) machines that churn out identical results nationwide. That has never been the case in our justice system, or any other for that matter. As we can see here, some would stick a bomb under any court that returns a verdict that they don't like for some reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason. This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
A court shouldn't be friendly or unfriendly to anyone. It should be neutral. I think Jeff's point about legal "tourism" is a valid one. The article points out that as Marshall TX is such a small town, that everyone knows everyone--that the juries know the local lawyers and the judge knows them all. This kind of single-industry driven burg can be very incestuous and creates a real impediment to blind justice. It strongly suggests a high degree of cronyism that results show favors patent holders.
Quotes like this from the NYT article:
". . . patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation."
are a legitimate cause for concern. When results are this badly skewed from the national average, doesn't that bother you at all? Brings back memories of the bad old days of southern justice when civil rights cases were routinely decided against the plaintiff.
Thanks for the thoughtful (and respectful) reply. I still don't know that I agree with you, but you've given me food for thought. I do take your point that this is massively complex.
Always a pleasure to debate issues with someobody who has an open mind.
Comments
This court is adjourned.
This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.
Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.
He actually did neither. Edison essentially copied the work of Joseph Swan in England.
I think you quoted Samsung's corporate slogan.
As long as they give the U.S. all its assets presently in Texas, and/or assumes its portion of the national debt.
Texas pays in $225B in taxes to the US Federal government. For every dollar paid to the Federal government, Texas only gets back 94 cents.
I don't think you want Texas to secede.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 214,000 net new jobs were created in the United States from August 2009 to August 2010. Texas created 119,000 jobs during the same period. If every state in the country had performed as well, we?d have created about 1.5 million jobs nationally during the past year
Yeah, I don't think you want Texas to secede.
What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?
Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.
Wrong
I also agree. Although it could stiffle innovation, so maybe a patent that lasts 5-10 years and can't be renewed so that a company is given credit for what they created and allowed to use it.
I think Apple will appeal because even the small amount could have long term affects to the bottom line. In other words, will it cover the continued sale? what about new products? Although, it could be part of the terms of the agreement.
Perfect example of modern reporting - this is stuff you shouldn't have to guess at.
That's a horrible analogy Jeff. Copying files from a computer to a connected device is a lot like downloading; whilst controlling a computer with a mouse is not even remotely like uploading?
(The key would be the copying of files...)
Why don't people on the Internet simply acknowledge when other folks make a good/valid point, and instead come up with silly justifications to defend their (often somewhat silly) positions?
No response necessary...
agree
Lamps and tires come to mind, and I'd imagine some shoe laces.
The problem I have with this patent is that they effectively patented a list. That should fall under the obvious heading.
what are tyres? I ware Gucci slip on's.
A federal jury has decided against Apple in a patent infringement suit accusing Apple of violating two patents related to downloadable playlists for iPods.
Bloomberg reported on Friday that, according to the lawyer for plaintiff Personal Audio, a jury found that patents were indeed infringed on and upheld their validity. Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos were also included in the original suit, but they had settled out of court last year.
Personal Audio, a patent licensing company, sued Apple in 2009 asking for $84 million in damages. Apple was accused of violating U.S. patents 6,199,076 "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller" and 7,509,178 "Audio Program Distribution and Playback System."
The inventions describe an audio player that "can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list," report author Susan Decker wrote. Apple asserted that the patents were invalid, while also claiming that it wasn't using the inventions.
Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents noted that Apple has "little incentive to appeal this decision," as the $8 million damages award is relatively insubstantial for the company, which has more than $60 billion in cash reserves. However, Apple could announce an intent to file an appeal in hopes of negotiating a discounted settlement with the company.
Mueller also compared the case to an ongoing case between iOS developers and Lodsys. The company filed suit in May, alleging that iOS developers have violated patents related to in-app purchasing. Apple has filed a motion to intervene in the case and maintains that the developers are covered under an licensing agreement it signed with Lodsys.
Like Personal Audio, Lodsys is a non-practicing entity that generates income from patent licenses. Both companies also chose to file their cases in East Texas, a district known for favoring so-called "patent trolls."
Apple recently paid $2 billion for a collection of 4G wireless networking patents from Canadian telecommunications company Nortel in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage in the smartphone race. As patent suits have ramped up in recent years, Apple has become the world's most-sued
and the drum beats .....
Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.
You understand that patents don't enforce themselves right? To enforce them requires a lawsuit, a very expensive one generally, which puts it well outside the means of most individuals. The easiest way an individual can profit from a patent is by selling it, or by granting an exclusive license to it - which would amount to the same thing - and would fall afoul of your hypothetical draconian regulations.
No falling afoul of regulations if it is sold or licensed--you can sell or license your patent to anyone who is willing to pay. Seller still gets his cash. But the buyer would actually have to use it. If buyer doesn't utilize patent within prescribed period it becomes null and void--worthless. If a licensee doesn't use it, so what, owner still owns patent. Onus is on buyers to actually use patents instead of trading them.
Now, if you are holding and using a patent and someone infringes on it, nothing changes. You still go to court to enforce.
Are you saying that the only way the "little guy" can make money on a patent is to become a patent troll?
It's about to get worse if President Obama gets the "patent reform" bill he keeps demanding. Right now we have a "first to invent" system meaning if you can prove you invented something first, you get the patent.
Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.
This bill has major bi-partisan support, and has more Republicans voting for it than Democrats so far. Republicans have the numbers to shut it down but haven't. So wouldn't be as fair to say that the bill is being pushed on the President rather than to say he is is demanding it?
Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.
Big companies already file and amend and amend and amend again as a way to block competitors and extend the effective term of a patent.
Sounds interesting and logical, but is there specific evidence that first to file is damaging like you say it is? As the US is the lone holdout on first to invent, so it would seem like there should be plenty of information on this. I've looked at a dozen sites and hadn't found any clear facts of consequences backed by evidence, it all looks like supposition. It seems very odd in all the articles I've seen that the results of any other country's switching is never referenced. I would also think that proving that you're first to invent is a pretty tough thing to do, but that isn't addressed very well in the articles either.
No falling afoul of regulations if it is sold or licensed--you can sell or license your patent to anyone who is willing to pay. Seller still gets his cash. But the buyer would actually have to use it. If buyer doesn't utilize patent within prescribed period it becomes null and void--worthless.
Ok, you're reframing your idea from banning selling to invalidating patents that aren't used by the owning company, which is a different idea, though still not helpful. There are several problems with that, First off it introduces a huge and messy question, what is a product?
Can ARM patent anything? They don't have any physical product, they don't have any software product, their product is a design. Is a product a product if nobody buys it? How many people need to? What happens when a patent owner becomes bankrupt and ceases production of its products? Do they become invalid? Introducing poorly defined concepts into law is a recipe for massively expensive litigation, and would result only in further consolidation of patents into rich firms.
Finally your solution doesn't solve the problem. Terrible patents like 1-click would still exist because Amazon created and used it, so that's all great in your system.
The problem with obvious patents isn't that their made by trolls, the problem is that they're obvious. The way to fix them is to tighten up patents needs to come by getting legal recognition that 'obvious' means something.
A great example is the linked list. There's really no doubt at this point that if computers were invented right now I could get a patent on linked lists. But linked lists are massively obvious to anybody who works in computers, many of us invented them for ourselves before we ever found that they had a name. The problem is when a completely new domain appears, concepts that are 'obvious' to people who work in that domain can seem novel to the rest of the world that doesn't.
A lot of Apple's multitouch patents probably come into this category. Apple will almost certainly succeed in defending them, because the current standard for obvious is so low - but it's very questionable that it should.
The First District Kangaroo Court of AppleInsider hereby finds the finds the United States District Court of East Texas guilty of something. After we string them up we will decide what they did wrong. Maybe. Not that it's really necessary.
This court is adjourned.
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2&pagewanted=1
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2&pagewanted=1
Really. I have a problem with vague and uninformed opinions leading to a lynch mob mentality, which is fully in evidence here. I can't claim any great knowledge of the issues and deficiencies of the current patent system, let alone the role played in it by the federal courts, but I can see that nobody here does either. I can also distinguish between informed, rational discussion and emotional spews.
Ok, you're reframing your idea from banning selling to invalidating patents that aren't used by the owning company, which is a different idea, though still not helpful. There are several problems with that, First off it introduces a huge and messy question, what is a product?
Can ARM patent anything? They don't have any physical product, they don't have any software product, their product is a design. Is a product a product if nobody buys it? How many people need to? What happens when a patent owner becomes bankrupt and ceases production of its products? Do they become invalid? Introducing poorly defined concepts into law is a recipe for massively expensive litigation, and would result only in further consolidation of patents into rich firms.
Finally your solution doesn't solve the problem. Terrible patents like 1-click would still exist because Amazon created and used it, so that's all great in your system.
The problem with obvious patents isn't that their made by trolls, the problem is that they're obvious. The way to fix them is to tighten up patents needs to come by getting legal recognition that 'obvious' means something.
A great example is the linked list. There's really no doubt at this point that if computers were invented right now I could get a patent on linked lists. But linked lists are massively obvious to anybody who works in computers, many of us invented them for ourselves before we ever found that they had a name. The problem is when a completely new domain appears, concepts that are 'obvious' to people who work in that domain can seem novel to the rest of the world that doesn't.
A lot of Apple's multitouch patents probably come into this category. Apple will almost certainly succeed in defending them, because the current standard for obvious is so low - but it's very questionable that it should.
Thanks for the thoughtful (and respectful) reply. I still don't know that I agree with you, but you've given me food for thought. I do take your point that this is massively complex.
Others please note that posters can profoundly disagree with one another without stooping to cheap shots and gratuitous insults.
Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2&pagewanted=1
Really. I have a problem with vague and uninformed opinions leading to a lynch mob mentality, which is fully in evidence here. I can't claim any great knowledge of the issues and deficiencies of the current patent system, let alone the role played in it by the federal courts, but I can see that nobody here does either. I can also distinguish between informed, rational discussion and emotional spews.
You make a good point, Doc, but aren't you also sidestepping Jeff's point? You make the point that lynch mob mentality is evident (granted), but when he offers evidence to support those feelings you don't acknowledge it. Might be worth reading his link before concluding that nobody here has any knowledge about the issue at hand.
You make a good point, Doc, but aren't you also sidestepping Jeff's point? You make the point that lynch mob mentality is evident (granted), but when he offers evidence to support those feelings you don't acknowledge it. Might be worth reading his link before concluding that nobody here has any knowledge about the issue at hand.
I recall reading that article years ago. It provides little evidence to support the claims that this court is somehow fundamentally biased in favor of patent holders. They seem to do somewhat better in this court mainly (apparently) because the judge keeps things moving. Maybe some believe that courts, judges and juries are (or should be) machines that churn out identical results nationwide. That has never been the case in our justice system, or any other for that matter. As we can see here, some would stick a bomb under any court that returns a verdict that they don't like for some reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason. This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
I recall reading that article years ago. It provides little evidence to support the claims that this court is somehow fundamentally biased in favor of patent holders. They seem to do somewhat better in this court mainly (apparently) because the judge keeps things moving. Maybe some believe that courts, judges and juries are (or should be) machines that churn out identical results nationwide. That has never been the case in our justice system, or any other for that matter. As we can see here, some would stick a bomb under any court that returns a verdict that they don't like for some reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason. This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
A court shouldn't be friendly or unfriendly to anyone. It should be neutral. I think Jeff's point about legal "tourism" is a valid one. The article points out that as Marshall TX is such a small town, that everyone knows everyone--that the juries know the local lawyers and the judge knows them all. This kind of single-industry driven burg can be very incestuous and creates a real impediment to blind justice. It strongly suggests a high degree of cronyism that results show favors patent holders.
Quotes like this from the NYT article:
". . . patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation."
are a legitimate cause for concern. When results are this badly skewed from the national average, doesn't that bother you at all? Brings back memories of the bad old days of southern justice when civil rights cases were routinely decided against the plaintiff.
Thanks for the thoughtful (and respectful) reply. I still don't know that I agree with you, but you've given me food for thought. I do take your point that this is massively complex.
Always a pleasure to debate issues with someobody who has an open mind.