I have patents to my name and have managed R&D departments which earned dozens of other patents (which required me to be involved with the patent process). Is that sufficient?
I wasn't really questioning anyone's qualifications specifically. By responding with the last three words, you seemed to take direct offense at my disclaimer as if I was targeting you. I was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're arguing two different things. Do patents get awarded that shouldn't be? Sure. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the standards should be stricter or that the patent examiners should have better training (although you'd better be prepared to pay more to keep USPTO open if they have to hire more and better examiners).
But to jump from there to "we don't need patents" is absurd. Patents protect inventors. If a company couldn't protect its intellectual property, why invest in R&D? The winner would simply be the company who can copy things fastest. There would no longer be any advantage to innovation - which would be bad for consumers and the economy as a whole.
I don't recall stating we don't need patents. I do recall questioning why though. You have answered that question even though it was mostly rhetorical. They do protect inventors. The problem that I see is that they also seem to protect everyone you just claimed would win if patents didn't exist. That's all that seems to be going on here anymore. People copying other people. Some getting away with it and some not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Glad you said that - you saved me the trouble.
I'm not sure that was really necessary but you're welcome.
In what way is Apple encouraging people to break the law or to be evil?
Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
Current speed of technical progress demands intelectual property rights to last no longer than 3-5 years, otherwise they only prevent progress from development.
(1) Would you say that their motivation should be something other than profit?
(2) Questionable in what sense? Legally questionable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
Back in Apple, Digitude made this annoucement in a press release, bragging of their "completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world?s leading consumer electronics companies. . ."
?Although the details of the transaction are confidential, a strategic partnership of this sort ? with a forward-looking market leader ? gives Digitude continued momentum and validates the unique Digitude strategy to bundle together a comprehensive license with the acquisition/contribution of assets from partners,? said Robert Kramer, Chairman of Digitude Innovations and Managing Partner of Altitude Capital Partners. ?Given the significant nature of this partnership and the other discussions underway, we expect to secure only one or two more such strategic partnerships in the coming months before we aggressively begin our licensing efforts.?
In his defense. His sig is a counter reaction to another sig on this forum that is even more annoying.
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
There is a reason I titled it Occupy Signature. You are talking about it which is proving and validating the very point I'm making.
Back in Apple, Digitude made this annoucement in a press release, bragging of their "completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world’s leading consumer electronics companies. . ."
...
Were they referring to Apple? It appears to be the case.
This is a day for all True Apple Fans to hang their heads in shame.
This is not the kind of company that many fell in love with back in the day, but a wholly different sort of a beast. Indeed, it is exaclty the type of misadventuring corporate behemoth that Steve and Woz HATED back when they decided to create something for "the rest of us".
Did Steve want his legacy to practice questionable business ethics? Did Woz want his to be a gun runner for patent trolls?
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
That's a pretty good point that you make there.
Perhaps Apple is playing chess, while the other bozos are playing checkers.
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.
Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.
I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.
Here's the way it works:
- Someone invents something.
- If the USPTO (or foreign equivalent) considers it novel and useful, they can get a patent.
- The patent is subject to challenge - immediately or at a later date
- The patent owner is free to do whatever they want with the patent. They can use it themselves, they can license it, they can sell it, or they can do nothing at all with it and simply prevent others from using the technology. The entire purpose of the patent system is that the inventor has absolute control over whatever they've invented.
- If the inventor doesn't want to own the patent for any reason, they are free to sell it, license it, transfer it, or give it away. The new owner has all the rights of the original owner (see above). The licensee has whatever rights the patent owner gives him.
That's it. There's nothing illegal about licensing a patent that you don't intend to use. That doesn't make you a troll, it just means that you are unable to practice a patent (most often because the cost of getting into the market is so high that there's no way for a small inventor to practice a patent).
So let's drop all the patent troll garbage. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patents and is free to sue infringers. And there is absolutely no requirement (nor should there be) that a patent holder should be making products using the patent.
Just one example. Let's say that someone in a university lab develops a process to make nuclear reactors safer and more efficient. It's easy to implement and safe and reliable. Should the university lose their patent if they can't afford the $20,000,000,000 it costs to build a nuclear reactor or should they be allowed to license the technology to GE, Siemens, et al?
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.
I wouldn't doubt it. Regardless, it is a good strategy. If Mosaid sues somebody it would be harder for that somebody to retaliate against Nokia or Microsoft.
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay or stop?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
Digitude took down their site just a few days ago, going undercover apparently. A cached copy of a press release at the now-removed Digitude site that I hadn't yet seen mentioned anywhere shows that Apple wasn't forced into any deal with them.(as well as proof of the link between Digitude and Altitude Capital). Instead they are an active and eager participant. Take a look at the speakers from their September invitation-only event:
New York, NY – May 27, 2011 – Altitude Capital Partners, a NY-based private equity fund,today announced that it will host a select group of the corporate intellectual property elite at itsfirst-ever Top IP Retreat. The inaugural event is by invitation-only and will take place on thegrounds of The Lodge at Pebble Beach on September 15-17.This influential set of executives will convene for two and a half days of discussions andnetworking. The Top IP Retreat will feature a line-up of world-class speakers, such as ChiefJudge Paul Michel (ret.) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Richard “Chip” Lutton ofApple, John Desmarais of Desmarais LLP and Round Rock Research, Morgan Chu of Irell &Manella, Michael Wagner of LitiNomics, and John Jarosz of The Analysis Group. “We’re excited to host this groundbreaking event and provide a unique forum for these top IPexecutives to get together, share ideas, discuss the current state of the intellectual market, andexplore ways to move the industry forward,” said Robert Kramer, Managing Partner of AltitudeCapital Partners
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
That is total nonsense.
It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.
Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.
The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.
Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay or stop”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay or stop?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
The behavior that you're criticizing already benefits small inventors. If I invent a technology that will improve the integrated circuit manufacturing process, I don't have a chance in the world of being able to commercialize it since I don't have a few billion dollars to buy a state-of-the-art facility. My only hope to get some money form it is if I can sell it or license it to a third party. And that's the process that you're arguing against.
Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.
Comments
I have patents to my name and have managed R&D departments which earned dozens of other patents (which required me to be involved with the patent process). Is that sufficient?
I wasn't really questioning anyone's qualifications specifically. By responding with the last three words, you seemed to take direct offense at my disclaimer as if I was targeting you. I was not.
You're arguing two different things. Do patents get awarded that shouldn't be? Sure. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the standards should be stricter or that the patent examiners should have better training (although you'd better be prepared to pay more to keep USPTO open if they have to hire more and better examiners).
But to jump from there to "we don't need patents" is absurd. Patents protect inventors. If a company couldn't protect its intellectual property, why invest in R&D? The winner would simply be the company who can copy things fastest. There would no longer be any advantage to innovation - which would be bad for consumers and the economy as a whole.
I don't recall stating we don't need patents. I do recall questioning why though. You have answered that question even though it was mostly rhetorical. They do protect inventors. The problem that I see is that they also seem to protect everyone you just claimed would win if patents didn't exist. That's all that seems to be going on here anymore. People copying other people. Some getting away with it and some not.
Glad you said that - you saved me the trouble.
I'm not sure that was really necessary but you're welcome.
In what way is Apple encouraging people to break the law or to be evil?
Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
Yes I'm aware of the differences in the definitions of the words....
No, you don't.
(1) Would you say that their motivation should be something other than profit?
(2) Questionable in what sense? Legally questionable?
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
?Although the details of the transaction are confidential, a strategic partnership of this sort ? with a forward-looking market leader ? gives Digitude continued momentum and validates the unique Digitude strategy to bundle together a comprehensive license with the acquisition/contribution of assets from partners,? said Robert Kramer, Chairman of Digitude Innovations and Managing Partner of Altitude Capital Partners. ?Given the significant nature of this partnership and the other discussions underway, we expect to secure only one or two more such strategic partnerships in the coming months before we aggressively begin our licensing efforts.?
http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=455099
Were they referring to Apple? It appears to be the case.
Forbes had another article on them earlier in the year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanva...fear-digitude/
In his defense. His sig is a counter reaction to another sig on this forum that is even more annoying.
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
That doesn't matter though. It's about who is right.
If an evil midget is bothering and bullying a giant, then the giant has every right to stomp on the midget's head.
LOL
Apple ][ you crack me up. I find your rather irreverent pro-Apple cum defense posture to be refreshing and humorous and intelligent.
Keep it up!
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
There is a reason I titled it Occupy Signature. You are talking about it which is proving and validating the very point I'm making.
Back in Apple, Digitude made this annoucement in a press release, bragging of their "completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world’s leading consumer electronics companies. . ."
...
Were they referring to Apple? It appears to be the case.
This is a day for all True Apple Fans to hang their heads in shame.
This is not the kind of company that many fell in love with back in the day, but a wholly different sort of a beast. Indeed, it is exaclty the type of misadventuring corporate behemoth that Steve and Woz HATED back when they decided to create something for "the rest of us".
Did Steve want his legacy to practice questionable business ethics? Did Woz want his to be a gun runner for patent trolls?
Maybe? But not likely.
That's a pretty good point that you make there.
Perhaps Apple is playing chess, while the other bozos are playing checkers.
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.
Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.
I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.
Here's the way it works:
- Someone invents something.
- If the USPTO (or foreign equivalent) considers it novel and useful, they can get a patent.
- The patent is subject to challenge - immediately or at a later date
- The patent owner is free to do whatever they want with the patent. They can use it themselves, they can license it, they can sell it, or they can do nothing at all with it and simply prevent others from using the technology. The entire purpose of the patent system is that the inventor has absolute control over whatever they've invented.
- If the inventor doesn't want to own the patent for any reason, they are free to sell it, license it, transfer it, or give it away. The new owner has all the rights of the original owner (see above). The licensee has whatever rights the patent owner gives him.
That's it. There's nothing illegal about licensing a patent that you don't intend to use. That doesn't make you a troll, it just means that you are unable to practice a patent (most often because the cost of getting into the market is so high that there's no way for a small inventor to practice a patent).
So let's drop all the patent troll garbage. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patents and is free to sue infringers. And there is absolutely no requirement (nor should there be) that a patent holder should be making products using the patent.
Just one example. Let's say that someone in a university lab develops a process to make nuclear reactors safer and more efficient. It's easy to implement and safe and reliable. Should the university lose their patent if they can't afford the $20,000,000,000 it costs to build a nuclear reactor or should they be allowed to license the technology to GE, Siemens, et al?
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.
I wouldn't doubt it. Regardless, it is a good strategy. If Mosaid sues somebody it would be harder for that somebody to retaliate against Nokia or Microsoft.
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
+1. Well put.
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay or stop?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Digitude took down their site just a few days ago, going undercover apparently. A cached copy of a press release at the now-removed Digitude site that I hadn't yet seen mentioned anywhere shows that Apple wasn't forced into any deal with them.(as well as proof of the link between Digitude and Altitude Capital). Instead they are an active and eager participant. Take a look at the speakers from their September invitation-only event:
New York, NY – May 27, 2011 – Altitude Capital Partners, a NY-based private equity fund,today announced that it will host a select group of the corporate intellectual property elite at itsfirst-ever Top IP Retreat. The inaugural event is by invitation-only and will take place on thegrounds of The Lodge at Pebble Beach on September 15-17.This influential set of executives will convene for two and a half days of discussions andnetworking. The Top IP Retreat will feature a line-up of world-class speakers, such as ChiefJudge Paul Michel (ret.) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Richard “Chip” Lutton ofApple, John Desmarais of Desmarais LLP and Round Rock Research, Morgan Chu of Irell &Manella, Michael Wagner of LitiNomics, and John Jarosz of The Analysis Group. “We’re excited to host this groundbreaking event and provide a unique forum for these top IPexecutives to get together, share ideas, discuss the current state of the intellectual market, andexplore ways to move the industry forward,” said Robert Kramer, Managing Partner of AltitudeCapital Partners
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...PR_5.27.11.pdf
For anyone interested, their other executive personnel include:
Ed Gomez-General Counsel/ Litigation Management
Jimmy Goo-Director Portfolio Management/ Licensing
Anthony Grillo-Director Licensing/Contracts
Bryan Lord-Director Acquisitions & Strategic Relationships/Licensing
William Marino-Director Litigation Management/Licensing
Based on some quick research I'd guess that those Kodak patents that were being shopped around have also made their way to Digitude.
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.
A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
That is total nonsense.
It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.
Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.
The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.
Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?
“Patent troll”
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay or stop”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Bravo! I'm glad to see that innovators are banding together to stop Patent Tolls and those who profit from their sleazy doings, like Apple.
?Patent troll?
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay or stop?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Your hypocrisy is amazing.
The behavior that you're criticizing already benefits small inventors. If I invent a technology that will improve the integrated circuit manufacturing process, I don't have a chance in the world of being able to commercialize it since I don't have a few billion dollars to buy a state-of-the-art facility. My only hope to get some money form it is if I can sell it or license it to a third party. And that's the process that you're arguing against.
Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.