Are
patent trolls social harm blocking innovations all the times? How about having
a time to hear the voices for patent trolls in general and their role as patent
assertion entities for rights of inventors?
1. Patent troll:
'I'm ethical and moral' (CNN Money)
“Our
business model is to give inventors a share of the proceeds from the successful
lawsuits it brings against companies found to have violated their patents. … doesn't give inventors a low-ball upfront
offer for their patents and then proceed to make millions from lawsuits without
cutting them in on the rewards.”
Ref.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/02/technology/enterprise/patent-troll/index.html
2. Why We Can’t
Kill the Patent System (Wired)
“We
have only resorted to litigation when a company has refused to pay us for using
our inventions, and even then we have typically settled those disputes, always
on mutually acceptable terms.”
Ref.
http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/01/why-we-cant-kill-the-patent-system/
3. Exclusive
Interview: Paul Ryan, CEO of Acacia Research (IPWatchdoc)
“Our
role in the ecosystem is simply to give those disenfranchised patent owners a
level playing field by aggregating patents and get an audience with the users
of these technologies.”
Ref. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/22/exclusive-interview-paul-ryan-ceo-of-acacia-research-part-ii/id=33316/?goback=%2Egde_148749_member_207060543
4. Congress vs.
the 'patent trolls' (LA Times)
“Policymakers
shouldn't assume that every non-manufacturing company that buys patents is a
troll. Patent aggregators can play a vital role in protecting the interests of
legitimate small inventors. … the best defense against patent trolls is to stop
the patent office from granting bad patents.”
Ref. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-patents-trolls-obama-20130701,0,7958623.story
5. FTC should
avoid ‘Caddyshack’ approach with patent troll (Seattle Times)
“Solution
to the patent-troll problem should be carefully tailored. It must curtail
abusive litigation and licensing practices, but not inhibit the secondary
patent market by excessive restrictions on other nontroll participants.”
Ref.
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2021338547_jayjurataopedxml.html?cmpid=2628
Alex
G. Lee, Principal, TechIPm LLC
Posts
1 comment:
It is generally a correct statement that any party that seeks pecuniary gain by asserting false rights commits "harm". Somehow, the "innovators" (from Latin, "innovir", meaning to renew, i.e., infringe...) conflate all assertions with wrongful assertions. Likewise, the legal system is aghast that assertions might be made that demonstrate how inefficient the litigators and courts are, and therefore that should be settled without getting to the merits using those resources.
The bottom line is that the legal system has created a massive arbitrage opportunity, and in so doing, created profit opportunity for entities that make the system or resolution of issues outside the system more efficient. Those that argue against arbitrage, without fixing the inefficiencies that create their opportunity, obviously benefit from those inefficiencies. Quite simply, the "innovators" established a status quo that blocked fair and reasonable compensation of inventors for their IP by massive inefficiencies. The NPEs have established business models that either scale the issues large enough such that the inefficiencies are acceptable, or work around the system, forcing the "innovators" to settle rather than fight.
Once it is clear that the "innovators" are actually using rights they do not own, and for which they have no intention of compensating the proprietor, then the decision-makers can balance the equities with the inventors and their proxy rights holders (NPEs) and come to an optimal solution. Somehow, the massive continuing infringement of small stakeholders has been lost from sight as a protected interest in the rush to demonize "trolls".
Post a Comment