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.
The problem is that despite the outlying plaintiff:defendant win ratio, and despite the fact that this court is extremely popular for patent lawsuits, very few of the Judge's rulings have been subsequently overruled by the court of appeals. In fact, according to wiki, only one has.
It's not really comparable to the civil rights cases which were invariably overturned when they reached higher courts.
It may very well be that Judge Ward is in fact interpreting exist patent law entirely correctly, or at least plausibly, and that the fault lies not with him but with the law as it is currently framed.
The problem is that despite the outlying plaintiff:defendant win ratio, and despite the fact that this court is extremely popular for patent lawsuits, very few of the Judge's rulings have been subsequently overruled by the court of appeals. In fact, according to wiki, only one has.
I hadn't heard that, that's interesting. However, the circuit court did find him to be abusing discretion in denying transfer of venue to an astonishing degree:
Lax venue requirements and a strong resistance to venue correction should be viewed suspiciously.
Quote:
It may very well be that Judge Ward is in fact interpreting exist patent law entirely correctly, or at least plausibly, and that the fault lies not with him but with the law as it is currently framed.
The concern about venue shopping is still real, and I think the problem should be fixed. It's one that probably doesn't require a major overhaul of anything either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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.
I think I should make it clear that those comments aren't defensible, and I wasn't defending them. I thought pretty sure that someone had repudiated those comments pretty clearly.
Quote:
This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
Real-world, I think the court is a bigger problem. People that say stupid and indefensible stuff on the internet are a dime a million. People say stuff like that all the time, only one in a million are serious comments.
The concern about venue shopping is still real, and I think the problem should be fixed. It's one that probably doesn't require a major overhaul of anything either.
Ok, so say we stop venue shopping, how do we do that? How would you determine the venue?
Ok, so say we stop venue shopping, how do we do that? How would you determine the venue?
I would think that increasing the "presence" requirement to mean something more than a PO box or a rented office solely for the sake of qualifying to file in a given district. For instance, the "presence" used by one complainant to file against Microsoft was a fictional subsidiary incorporated in Texas just for the sake of being able to file in that district, merely 16 days before filing:
I would think that restricting presence to the district where the US headquarters of either the plaintiff or defendant would do a lot. Even if that is a crude simplification, it would be a worthy starting point.
It's possible that this has been addressed already, earlier this year, regarding the same case:
Allvoice nevertheless urges that this case is distinguishable from Genentech. Allvoice contends that unlike the plaintiff in that case, it has an established presence in the Eastern District of Texas. Allvoice's argument, however, rests on a fallacious assumption: that this court must honor connections to a preferred forum made in anticipation of litigation and for the likely purpose of making that forum appear convenient.
I would think that restricting presence to the district where the US headquarters of either the plaintiff or defendant would do a lot. Even if that is a crude simplification, it would be a worthy starting point.
It sounds good but I fear you've just kicked the can down the road. It would be pretty easy for any firm to move all their patents into a dedicated subsidiary that was based in East Texas, and hire a few permanent lawyers to staff it there. It would raise the cost of trolling, but not tremendously so. The most egregious trolls have no actual business, so moving the entire firm to East Texas wouldn't be too much hassle.
Corporate structures are trivially easy to move, which is why Delaware is such a corporate powerhouse
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the second link is supposed to be? I think you might have meant a different link? That one is about drainage districts.
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the second link is supposed to be? I think you might have meant a different link? That one is about drainage districts.
I pasted the wrong link. Post corrected, but here is it again:
It sounds good but I fear you've just kicked the can down the road. It would be pretty easy for any firm to move all their patents into a dedicated subsidiary that was based in East Texas, and hire a few permanent lawyers to staff it there. It would raise the cost of trolling, but not tremendously so. The most egregious trolls have no actual business, so moving the entire firm to East Texas wouldn't be too much hassle.
Maybe, but it would be a telltale sign if you relocate your "headquarters" a month before you file your suit, which would not be hard to discover. Then you lose your Delaware tax privileges.
I can see your point on the subsidiary though, it would require more planning and more waiting, but not prohibitively so.
That's promising then, it seems CAFC is on the issue. But this precedent at least would only help firms with substantial US presence. Suppose I wrote some software and sold it on the App Store. Since I'm not incorporated in the US neither of those precedents would apply, and the Court of East Texas could have its wicked way with me.
To my mind the real problem is the requirement that the patent not be 'obvious' is no longer meaningfully enforced, because the people enforcing it don't understand the problem domain well enough to know what is and isn't obvious. Ideally there should be a cheap way for a defendant to bring a patent up for review before a panel of people who actually understand the industry - but then you have a serious problem of 'panel selection', so I guess I'm just kicking the can down the road myself.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.
Editorial: Deregulation in favor of "self-policing" has allowed Wall Street, once a respected and conservative custodian of a nation's wealth, to become a playground for con men and schemers.
Terrible idea. First of all, you own the patent, and you are allowed to sell it. That means someone is allowed to buy it. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem with most patents is that often they are not used. But why? Many times the inventor can't get the funding, and can't persuade others to manufacturer it. Then what? It sits, giving the inventor no benefit. Then a company comes around and buys it. The inventor gets paid.
Later, someone else does decide to produce a product that contains the patented concept. So you are saying that they should be allowed to do so without paying? I don't think so!
The stipulated time is whatever is left of the twenty years the patent is good for.
That's a real stretch where software patents are concerned, the fact is that copyright provided enough protection for software for decades - the extension of the use of patents to software and business practices hasn't empowered innovation, quite the opposite.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional programmer who thinks that software patents drive innovation in the software industry, except possibly in a very few areas like cryptography.
When you say decades are implying a lot of decades - or more than just one or two? Because...
The first software was copyrighted in November of 1961, twenty years later in May of 1981 was when Satya Pal Asija fought and won his software patent in the US.
IF you believe everything you read in Wikipedia (not saying I do necessarily), it was even earlier - they claim that a software patent was applied for and approved in 1962 in the UK. In the US it was since the 70s. SO I guess I questions the "for decades" assertion here unless you meant by implication that decades only meant to imply "a long time" - say the intervening months between 1961 first software copyright and 1962 first (claimed) software patent.
The entire premise of patents is that someone who comes up with something useful should be able to benefit from their invention. Without patents, innovation would be severely stifled. In particular, small companies would have no incentive to invent anything - because a larger company could just come in and commercialize their invention and wipe the floor with them due to greater resources.
But the opposite is happening. These patent trolls don't commercialize their inventions. They don't take on the risks of developing a product and bringing it to market. Other companies like Apple do all of the hard work and assume all of the risks, while the patent holder sits back waiting for their payday. If the product fails, the patent troll doesn't lose a dime. If the product is successful, the patent troll files a lawsuit in East Texas, claiming "damages."
The first software was copyrighted in November of 1961, twenty years later in May of 1981 was when Satya Pal Asija fought and won his software patent in the US.
I can't think of a software patent that was as broad, obvious and dumb as 1-click being relevant pre 1990. There were significant software patents before then, such as the LZW patent, but they were easy to avoid - one could simply use a slightly different compression algorithm for example. The LZW patent itself didn't really start to bite till the 90s when it caused problems with GIFs, and while irksome it was certainly a valid patent.
The 90s were a Software Patent goldrush - where we saw idiocy such as
which essentially attempted to retrospectively patent the WWW, and was only finally invalidated in 2008. So I would argue that from the dawn of computer software in the late 50s until the early 90s, all but a handful of algorithms were protected, when protection was necessary, with copyright.
Back then, one couldn't patent ideas. One had to have something that worked first.
It used to be that patents had to be something innovative, and couldn't be intuitively obviously.
Well, the problem with patenting cars that run on sewer water is the patent does you no good unless someone can realize the idea. Fortunately, patents don't last forever, so there's not an infinite window of opportunity for the trolls.
But i agree. Patents shouldn't be issued for ideas. You used to have to have something to show.
Um, it was more than "some descriptions of a fence construction." Try: Lifting the plot & main character, and over 80 whole passages (from The African, by Harold Courlander.)
Unless, of course, the defendant can counter-sue.
Unfortunately, it would also limit those with legitimate claims. So it's not a perfect solution. But i agree the system, as it is, is broken.
You still can't patent ideas. Laymen don't understand patents, so they seem to think that you can patent ideas, and things that are obvious. You can't. That doesn't mean that from time to time something doesn't slip through the system. The patent examiners are overworked, and sometimes miss things. That's why patents can be challenged, and others can ask that a patent be re-examined. And this does happen. So to a certain extent, the system is self correcting.
But anyone who expects the system to be perfect is simply asking too much.
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.
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.
Everywhere else in the world, it's a file first system. We're the only one's who don't use that system. So it's been demanded of us that we conform to what everyone else does. No matter who is in office, we would have given in to this. If we could have gotten everyone else to do it our way, then that would have been better, as I prefer it as well. But it is what it is. It's needed to have things everywhere work the same way.
Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.
Their real cash/cash equivalent ( any assets that can be converted to cash within one period or one year, whichever is longer) is only around $15 billion.
The problem with most patents is that often they are not used. But why? Many times the inventor can't get the funding, and can't persuade others to manufacturer it. Then what? It sits, giving the inventor no benefit. Then a company comes around and buys it. The inventor gets paid.
No, most of these software patents weren't created with the intent of making a product, they were created as an intellectual land grab. It's far easier to make a software product than it is to patent one, if you're a programmer.
That's promising then, it seems CAFC is on the issue. But this precedent at least would only help firms with substantial US presence. Suppose I wrote some software and sold it on the App Store. Since I'm not incorporated in the US neither of those precedents would apply, and the Court of East Texas could have its wicked way with me.
To my mind the real problem is the requirement that the patent not be 'obvious' is no longer meaningfully enforced, because the people enforcing it don't understand the problem domain well enough to know what is and isn't obvious. Ideally there should be a cheap way for a defendant to bring a patent up for review before a panel of people who actually understand the industry - but then you have a serious problem of 'panel selection', so I guess I'm just kicking the can down the road myself.
Both by the Supreme Court and Congress, the concept of obviousness has been tightened up considerably.
But the opposite is happening. These patent trolls don't commercialize their inventions. They don't take on the risks of developing a product and bringing it to market. Other companies like Apple do all of the hard work and assume all of the risks, while the patent holder sits back waiting for their payday. If the product fails, the patent troll doesn't lose a dime. If the product is successful, the patent troll files a lawsuit in East Texas, claiming "damages."
The vast number of patents are NOT owned by trolls. The rare situation of a troll suing doesn't affect inventiveness at all, even though it's annoying.
Besides, the entire point of patents is to FORCE others to find other ways of doing something. That's where innovation comes from. It doesn't necessarily come from any one patent being used or not.
In this sense, even a lawsuit from a troll aids innovation. If a company doesn't want to pay them, let them find another way of doing it, that's the entire point.
If they don't want to, or that can't, well, then the patent has value, doesn't it? It really doesn't matter who licenses it. What's the difference if IBM invents a portfolio of patents, and then decides that it's not where they want to go,and they don't want to bother licensing them, and so sells that portfolio to another company? Nothing! IBM gets some value from their inventions, and others can license them from whomever bought them instead of IBM. No difference.
But, of course, IBM is the largest patent winner, and does license out most, but not all of them.
No, most of these software patents weren't created with the intent of making a product, they were created as an intellectual land grab. It's far easier to make a software product than it is to patent one, if you're a programmer.
Gee. Too bad, other than for this, we actually agree on everything else here.
You would have to prove that statement, and it will be an awfully difficult one to prove.
Comments
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.
The problem is that despite the outlying plaintiff:defendant win ratio, and despite the fact that this court is extremely popular for patent lawsuits, very few of the Judge's rulings have been subsequently overruled by the court of appeals. In fact, according to wiki, only one has.
It's not really comparable to the civil rights cases which were invariably overturned when they reached higher courts.
It may very well be that Judge Ward is in fact interpreting exist patent law entirely correctly, or at least plausibly, and that the fault lies not with him but with the law as it is currently framed.
The problem is that despite the outlying plaintiff:defendant win ratio, and despite the fact that this court is extremely popular for patent lawsuits, very few of the Judge's rulings have been subsequently overruled by the court of appeals. In fact, according to wiki, only one has.
I hadn't heard that, that's interesting. However, the circuit court did find him to be abusing discretion in denying transfer of venue to an astonishing degree:
http://www.setexasrecord.com/argumen...atent-transfer
Lax venue requirements and a strong resistance to venue correction should be viewed suspiciously.
It may very well be that Judge Ward is in fact interpreting exist patent law entirely correctly, or at least plausibly, and that the fault lies not with him but with the law as it is currently framed.
The concern about venue shopping is still real, and I think the problem should be fixed. It's one that probably doesn't require a major overhaul of anything either.
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.
I think I should make it clear that those comments aren't defensible, and I wasn't defending them. I thought pretty sure that someone had repudiated those comments pretty clearly.
This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.
Real-world, I think the court is a bigger problem. People that say stupid and indefensible stuff on the internet are a dime a million. People say stuff like that all the time, only one in a million are serious comments.
The concern about venue shopping is still real, and I think the problem should be fixed. It's one that probably doesn't require a major overhaul of anything either.
Ok, so say we stop venue shopping, how do we do that? How would you determine the venue?
Ok, so say we stop venue shopping, how do we do that? How would you determine the venue?
I would think that increasing the "presence" requirement to mean something more than a PO box or a rented office solely for the sake of qualifying to file in a given district. For instance, the "presence" used by one complainant to file against Microsoft was a fictional subsidiary incorporated in Texas just for the sake of being able to file in that district, merely 16 days before filing:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/jurisdiction/
I would think that restricting presence to the district where the US headquarters of either the plaintiff or defendant would do a lot. Even if that is a crude simplification, it would be a worthy starting point.
It's possible that this has been addressed already, earlier this year, regarding the same case:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federa...t/1551804.html
Allvoice nevertheless urges that this case is distinguishable from Genentech. Allvoice contends that unlike the plaintiff in that case, it has an established presence in the Eastern District of Texas. Allvoice's argument, however, rests on a fallacious assumption: that this court must honor connections to a preferred forum made in anticipation of litigation and for the likely purpose of making that forum appear convenient.
I would think that restricting presence to the district where the US headquarters of either the plaintiff or defendant would do a lot. Even if that is a crude simplification, it would be a worthy starting point.
It sounds good but I fear you've just kicked the can down the road. It would be pretty easy for any firm to move all their patents into a dedicated subsidiary that was based in East Texas, and hire a few permanent lawyers to staff it there. It would raise the cost of trolling, but not tremendously so. The most egregious trolls have no actual business, so moving the entire firm to East Texas wouldn't be too much hassle.
Corporate structures are trivially easy to move, which is why Delaware is such a corporate powerhouse
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the second link is supposed to be? I think you might have meant a different link? That one is about drainage districts.
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the second link is supposed to be? I think you might have meant a different link? That one is about drainage districts.
I pasted the wrong link. Post corrected, but here is it again:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federa...t/1551804.html
It sounds good but I fear you've just kicked the can down the road. It would be pretty easy for any firm to move all their patents into a dedicated subsidiary that was based in East Texas, and hire a few permanent lawyers to staff it there. It would raise the cost of trolling, but not tremendously so. The most egregious trolls have no actual business, so moving the entire firm to East Texas wouldn't be too much hassle.
Maybe, but it would be a telltale sign if you relocate your "headquarters" a month before you file your suit, which would not be hard to discover. Then you lose your Delaware tax privileges.
I can see your point on the subsidiary though, it would require more planning and more waiting, but not prohibitively so.
I pasted the wrong link. Post corrected, but here is it again:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federa...t/1551804.html
That's promising then, it seems CAFC is on the issue. But this precedent at least would only help firms with substantial US presence. Suppose I wrote some software and sold it on the App Store. Since I'm not incorporated in the US neither of those precedents would apply, and the Court of East Texas could have its wicked way with me.
To my mind the real problem is the requirement that the patent not be 'obvious' is no longer meaningfully enforced, because the people enforcing it don't understand the problem domain well enough to know what is and isn't obvious. Ideally there should be a cheap way for a defendant to bring a patent up for review before a panel of people who actually understand the industry - but then you have a serious problem of 'panel selection', so I guess I'm just kicking the can down the road myself.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.
Editorial: Deregulation in favor of "self-policing" has allowed Wall Street, once a respected and conservative custodian of a nation's wealth, to become a playground for con men and schemers.
Terrible idea. First of all, you own the patent, and you are allowed to sell it. That means someone is allowed to buy it. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem with most patents is that often they are not used. But why? Many times the inventor can't get the funding, and can't persuade others to manufacturer it. Then what? It sits, giving the inventor no benefit. Then a company comes around and buys it. The inventor gets paid.
Later, someone else does decide to produce a product that contains the patented concept. So you are saying that they should be allowed to do so without paying? I don't think so!
The stipulated time is whatever is left of the twenty years the patent is good for.
That's a real stretch where software patents are concerned, the fact is that copyright provided enough protection for software for decades - the extension of the use of patents to software and business practices hasn't empowered innovation, quite the opposite.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional programmer who thinks that software patents drive innovation in the software industry, except possibly in a very few areas like cryptography.
When you say decades are implying a lot of decades - or more than just one or two? Because...
The first software was copyrighted in November of 1961, twenty years later in May of 1981 was when Satya Pal Asija fought and won his software patent in the US.
IF you believe everything you read in Wikipedia (not saying I do necessarily), it was even earlier - they claim that a software patent was applied for and approved in 1962 in the UK. In the US it was since the 70s. SO I guess I questions the "for decades" assertion here unless you meant by implication that decades only meant to imply "a long time" - say the intervening months between 1961 first software copyright and 1962 first (claimed) software patent.
The entire premise of patents is that someone who comes up with something useful should be able to benefit from their invention. Without patents, innovation would be severely stifled. In particular, small companies would have no incentive to invent anything - because a larger company could just come in and commercialize their invention and wipe the floor with them due to greater resources.
But the opposite is happening. These patent trolls don't commercialize their inventions. They don't take on the risks of developing a product and bringing it to market. Other companies like Apple do all of the hard work and assume all of the risks, while the patent holder sits back waiting for their payday. If the product fails, the patent troll doesn't lose a dime. If the product is successful, the patent troll files a lawsuit in East Texas, claiming "damages."
The first software was copyrighted in November of 1961, twenty years later in May of 1981 was when Satya Pal Asija fought and won his software patent in the US.
I can't think of a software patent that was as broad, obvious and dumb as 1-click being relevant pre 1990. There were significant software patents before then, such as the LZW patent, but they were easy to avoid - one could simply use a slightly different compression algorithm for example. The LZW patent itself didn't really start to bite till the 90s when it caused problems with GIFs, and while irksome it was certainly a valid patent.
The 90s were a Software Patent goldrush - where we saw idiocy such as
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5253341
which essentially attempted to retrospectively patent the WWW, and was only finally invalidated in 2008. So I would argue that from the dawn of computer software in the late 50s until the early 90s, all but a handful of algorithms were protected, when protection was necessary, with copyright.
Back then, one couldn't patent ideas. One had to have something that worked first.
It used to be that patents had to be something innovative, and couldn't be intuitively obviously.
Well, the problem with patenting cars that run on sewer water is the patent does you no good unless someone can realize the idea. Fortunately, patents don't last forever, so there's not an infinite window of opportunity for the trolls.
But i agree. Patents shouldn't be issued for ideas. You used to have to have something to show.
Um, it was more than "some descriptions of a fence construction." Try: Lifting the plot & main character, and over 80 whole passages (from The African, by Harold Courlander.)
Unless, of course, the defendant can counter-sue.
Unfortunately, it would also limit those with legitimate claims. So it's not a perfect solution. But i agree the system, as it is, is broken.
You still can't patent ideas. Laymen don't understand patents, so they seem to think that you can patent ideas, and things that are obvious. You can't. That doesn't mean that from time to time something doesn't slip through the system. The patent examiners are overworked, and sometimes miss things. That's why patents can be challenged, and others can ask that a patent be re-examined. And this does happen. So to a certain extent, the system is self correcting.
But anyone who expects the system to be perfect is simply asking too much.
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.
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.
Everywhere else in the world, it's a file first system. We're the only one's who don't use that system. So it's been demanded of us that we conform to what everyone else does. No matter who is in office, we would have given in to this. If we could have gotten everyone else to do it our way, then that would have been better, as I prefer it as well. But it is what it is. It's needed to have things everywhere work the same way.
Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.
Their real cash/cash equivalent ( any assets that can be converted to cash within one period or one year, whichever is longer) is only around $15 billion.
http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/26/2895/#idc-cover
Sorry, but no. That what the term "marketable securities" means.
Are you saying that the only way the "little guy" can make money on a patent is to become a patent troll?
Sometimes that's the case, but it wouldn't be trolling.
The problem with most patents is that often they are not used. But why? Many times the inventor can't get the funding, and can't persuade others to manufacturer it. Then what? It sits, giving the inventor no benefit. Then a company comes around and buys it. The inventor gets paid.
No, most of these software patents weren't created with the intent of making a product, they were created as an intellectual land grab. It's far easier to make a software product than it is to patent one, if you're a programmer.
That's promising then, it seems CAFC is on the issue. But this precedent at least would only help firms with substantial US presence. Suppose I wrote some software and sold it on the App Store. Since I'm not incorporated in the US neither of those precedents would apply, and the Court of East Texas could have its wicked way with me.
To my mind the real problem is the requirement that the patent not be 'obvious' is no longer meaningfully enforced, because the people enforcing it don't understand the problem domain well enough to know what is and isn't obvious. Ideally there should be a cheap way for a defendant to bring a patent up for review before a panel of people who actually understand the industry - but then you have a serious problem of 'panel selection', so I guess I'm just kicking the can down the road myself.
Both by the Supreme Court and Congress, the concept of obviousness has been tightened up considerably.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-to-defend.ars
This is a synopsis of the current bill. You'll notice the tightening up of the obviousness requirement.
http://www.mchaleslavin.com/Articles...GHCONGRESS.htm
But the opposite is happening. These patent trolls don't commercialize their inventions. They don't take on the risks of developing a product and bringing it to market. Other companies like Apple do all of the hard work and assume all of the risks, while the patent holder sits back waiting for their payday. If the product fails, the patent troll doesn't lose a dime. If the product is successful, the patent troll files a lawsuit in East Texas, claiming "damages."
The vast number of patents are NOT owned by trolls. The rare situation of a troll suing doesn't affect inventiveness at all, even though it's annoying.
Besides, the entire point of patents is to FORCE others to find other ways of doing something. That's where innovation comes from. It doesn't necessarily come from any one patent being used or not.
In this sense, even a lawsuit from a troll aids innovation. If a company doesn't want to pay them, let them find another way of doing it, that's the entire point.
If they don't want to, or that can't, well, then the patent has value, doesn't it? It really doesn't matter who licenses it. What's the difference if IBM invents a portfolio of patents, and then decides that it's not where they want to go,and they don't want to bother licensing them, and so sells that portfolio to another company? Nothing! IBM gets some value from their inventions, and others can license them from whomever bought them instead of IBM. No difference.
But, of course, IBM is the largest patent winner, and does license out most, but not all of them.
No, most of these software patents weren't created with the intent of making a product, they were created as an intellectual land grab. It's far easier to make a software product than it is to patent one, if you're a programmer.
Gee. Too bad, other than for this, we actually agree on everything else here.
You would have to prove that statement, and it will be an awfully difficult one to prove.