|
|
| PubPat Files Briefs with Supreme Court Re Anticompetitive Use of Patents |
 |
|
Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT
|
PubPat has filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court, with the question: to what extent can patents be used to destroy competition in the marketplace? You can get the briefs from PubPat's website. Here's the amicus brief by PubPaat, AARP, and Consumers Union in Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al., v. Independent Ink, Inc. [PDF], asking the court to "determine how patents on one product that are used through tying arrangements to eliminate competition on another un-patented product are evaluated under antitrust law." The case involves the new trend in the pharmaceutical industry of tying two drugs together in the form of combination pills, which are part patent-protected drug and part non-exclusive drug, or tying a patented drug with services. And here's PubPat's amicus brief in Federal Trade Commission v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al., which involves the exclusionary power of patents in an antitrust case, specifically asking the court "to protect the public from anti-competitive settlements of patent infringement litigation whereby a potential competitor is offered a share of the monopoly profits that can be maintained if it stays off the market. . ." If I have understood it, they are asking the Supreme Court to outline just how evil folks can get with patents. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that: to outline the parameters of anticompetitive activity with patents. Here's the press release.
*****************************
PUBPAT FILES BRIEFS WITH SUPREME COURT IN CASES INVOLVING THE EXTENT TO WHICH PATENT HOLDERS ARE ALLOWED TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION
NEW YORK -- September 30, 2005 -- The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") filed briefs with the United States Supreme Court this week in two separate cases involving the use of patents to destroy competition. The first brief, filed Wednesday with coauthors AARP and Consumer's Union, involves the leveraging of a patent through tying arrangements to retrain competition in markets for goods not covered by the patent. The second brief, filed today in support of the Federal Trade Commission, addresses the collusive settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit whereby a potential competitor agrees not to enter the market in exchange for a payment from the patent holder.
“In two separate cases this term, the Supreme Court is being asked whether having a patent means you have free reign to destroy competition any way you see fit," said PUBPAT Executive Director, Dan Ravicher. "In one case you have a patent holder forcing people to buy something they don't want or need and in the other you have two pharmaceutical companies conspiring to share the profits from only one of them selling a drug instead of having to compete with one another. Such anti-competitive behavior disregards the fundamental American principle of a fair marketplace where consumers benefit from greater choice and lower prices."
The joint AARP, PUBPAT and Consumer's Union brief, filed in the case Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., identified for the Court the growing trend in the pharmaceutical industry of so-called “combination” pills that combine a patent protected drug with another drug not covered by a patent that would otherwise be subject to full competition. By selling a patented drug only as part of a combination pill, pharmaceutical companies force patients to purchase their version of the unpatented drug, regardless of whether it is the safest or most effective version that is available to them. Today's brief, filed in Federal Trade Commission v. Schering-Plough Corp., highlighted for the court the fact that no patent gives its owner the right to exclude from the marketplace all products. As such, the lower court's assumption that a patent owner will be successful in asserting its patent against any given product was wrong and will, if left uncorrected, be harmful to America's competition-based economy.
More information about PUBPAT's briefs to the United States Supreme Court, including complete copies of the briefs, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Educating_and_Advocating.htm.
Contact:
Jill Ratkevic, Bite Communications
Jill.Ratkevic at bitepr.com.
About PUBPAT:
The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services organization working to protect the public from the harms caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by wrongly issued patents and unsound patent policy. PUBPAT provides the general public and those specific persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to the system governing patents, with representation, advocacy, and education. To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with "subscribe" in the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org. To be removed from the PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org.
###
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
| Well done Stats_for_all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Excellent!
Kudos to PubPat for their constant efforts on behalf of us all.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
| And please make links clickable [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux Critical Mass - Authored by: lightsail on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Linux Critical Mass - Authored by: Jude on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Singularity event. - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- If only - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- If only - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- GL News - Vista's licensing speeds NSW govt move to Linux desktops - Authored by: Mecha on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- SUN does good - Authored by: pfusco on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Heh. - Authored by: Jude on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- SUN does good - Authored by: Tyro on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- My, my, my... lots of patent news today - Authored by: pfusco on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Off-topic comments here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- Warner music plays the fool... - Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- "Trojan rides in on unpatched Office flaw" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- "Microsoft Chief Executive Ballmer to meet with EU regulators" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:01 PM EDT
- Is this a new linux server? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 11:37 PM EDT
- "Microsoft patent to cover penalising users who skip TV Ads" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- GPL3 codebase forking - possible self-created copyright violations? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- Speaking of the public domain - Authored by: jseigh on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT
- Off-topic comments here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 04:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
If the case Federal Trade Commission v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et
al. goes in our favor, then Microsoft's current exploitation of the US
Patent system and recent statements regarding patent infringement would have
been a complete waste of their time and money. I wonder if there is anything
else we can do to waste more of Microsofts time and money. hmmm. We need to
keep track of that case and the Supreme Courts ruling as well.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
***************** [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
This will be interesting to watch with the new Chief Justice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Love the show, but the Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al., v. Independent Ink,
Inc. case in particular reminds me one of its episodes. The big drug company
wanted Dr. House to talk about its new drug that they got a patent for. All the
new drug was one drug that was already out in the market and the patent was
about to expire combined with a common drug used to counteract one of the first
drugs side effects. I said that the big Pharms probably do that, and now I have
proof that they do. Of course House did speak of its wonders and said he knows
the drug would work because it is the old drug with a laxative (or something
like that) and the old drug worked.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
Ye Gads, Daniel Ravicher raving about patents, "free reign to destroy
competition" and "anti-competitive behavior" sounds *exactly*
like Daniel Wallace raving about copyrights, the GPL and
"price-fixing".
Have the two "Dans" been been conspiring?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
The patenting of specifications, standards, encoding
methods and other things required for interoperability,
authentication, encryption/decryption or data transfer is
an obvious anti-competitive use of patents which should be
looked into. No 'standard' defacto or otherwise that is
required for interoperability should be conferred patent
rights. Perhaps enforcement of patents should not apply
to usage of data formats necessary for interoperability.
The same applies to the patenting of basic scientific or
mathematical procedures (which is what software patents
for algorithms and the RSA encryption patents are).
Many computer hardware and software patents granted are
merely the computerisation of well known manual procedures
or business methods (eg. Intel's patent for having a CPU
look up logarithm tables to do faster multiplications).
The anti-competitive use of these should also be looked
at.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
| yup, we sure have got some smart people on our side! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
I can't help but notice the differences between the two briefs.
Oh, to be sure, the form is similar, which i would expect to be steeped in
tradition (that's the format used, because that's the way we've always done it)
While the one argues about aspects of the perscription drug businesses, because
the issue has to do with pharmacuticals, and the auhor's position is clear, as
are some of the issues being argued, the other brief uses pharmacuticals as an
extended example, but the speciffics or the actual case are hidden. The first
asks a writ be granted, but the other brief actually askes a lower court
decision be affirmed. I'm assuming that in the former, the author wants to
actually address the supreme court??
I wish i were a lawyer...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
| Just curious... What special expertise is brought to the question by the AARP? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
