decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj
Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 09:03 PM EDT

The public comments sent to the FTC and DOJ on patent trolls are fascinating. I'd like to show you one outstanding submission, by Barnes & Noble [PDF], who has been sued by trolls, or politely Patent Assertion Entities, or PAEs, over 25 times in the last five years (and received an additional 20+ claims that didn't result in litigation) which meant it has spent tens of millions defending against the avalanche in those five years. They have yet to lose, so they ask what is the point of a company having to endure constant claims that are without merit? Nobody pays them back in full to make them whole, even when they were totally innocent.

Its submission begins: "The patent system is broken," having "lost its true north", adding that the AIA did not fix the troll problem. And so it suggests five common-sense solutions to fix the problems. One suggestion is that trolls should not be allowed to file with the ITC at all, because that agency is about protecting trade, and trolls are not in business. And it points out that the Constitution requires a change. Yes. The Constitution:

The Patent and Copyright Clause grants Congress the power “[t]o...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not science fiction and litigious arts. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (emphasis added)). But the current system allows trolls to pursue fantastic allegations—claims that would be laughed out of the room in actual scientific or technical circles—in endless litigation that taxes and taxes true innovators while making no meaningful contribution to society.
If you enjoyed Barnes & Noble's revelations in court and to the ITC about what it called Microsoft's anticompetitive patent scheme against Android, you'll enjoy reading this new comment on trolls. They don't sugar coat. One of the claims it had to deal with was for using HTML. Wait. I'll let Barnes & Noble tell it:
Even the most plainly baseless lawsuits are expensive and can take years to defeat. In at least four cases, Barnes & Noble has faced litigation by patentees asserting the same theories on which they previously lost. In one case, for example, Barnes & Noble is alleged to infringe patents because BN.com uses the HTML language and returns search results other than exact matches. The patentee asserted these allegations against Barnes & Noble despite having tried and lost a case against other ecommerce retailers based on the same functional allegations levied against their websites....Barnes & Noble and other technology companies see countless lawsuits in which the asserted patents purport to cover products and technologies common to the entire industry. We face repeated allegations that anyone using Wi-Fi, anyone using 3G, anyone using MP3, anyone with an e-commerce website, anyone using Ethernet, and, recently, anyone using InfiniBand technology, to name a few, is infringing and must pay a hefty price to license purportedly essential patents. The allegations sweep far beyond specific innovations to which a patent might legitimately lay claim.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that lawyers for a book company know how to write. Lawyers can be excellent lawyers without that skill, but when they've got that ability too, what a pleasure it is.

****************

BARNES & NOBLE COMMENTS TO FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONCERNING PATENT LITIGATION

Submitted via email: ATR.LPS-PAEPublicComments@usdoj.gov

INTRODUCTION

The patent system is broken. Barnes & Noble alone has been sued by “non practicing entities”—a/k/a patent trolls—well over twenty-five times and received an additional twenty-plus patent claims in the last five years. The claimants do not have products and are not competitors. They assert claims for the sole purpose of extorting money. Companies like Barnes & Noble have to choose between paying extortionate ransoms and settling the claim, or fighting in a judicial system ill equipped to handle baseless patent claims at costs that frequently reach millions of dollars.

BACKGROUND

Barnes & Noble is a Fortune 500 company and leading retailer of content, digital media, and educational products. The company operates 677 Barnes & Noble bookstores in 50 states, and one of the Web’s largest e-commerce sites, BN.com (www.bn.com). The NOOK digital business offers award-winning NOOK® products and an expansive collection of digital reading and entertainment content through the NOOK StoreTM (www.nook.com). In addition, Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC operates 678 bookstores serving over 4.6 million students and faculty members at colleges and universities across the United States.

As a retail and technology leader, Barnes & Noble has a dual interest in preserving and rewarding innovation while fixing the untenable burden to business—and ultimately, to downstream consumers and society—that patent trolls impose. We offer solutions that will work and respectfully submit these comments for consideration by the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice.

2

ANALYSIS

The Current System is Broken

In the current system, patent trolls overwhelm operating companies with baseless litigation that is extremely costly to defend. Patent cases generally cost at least $2M to take through trial, and frequently much more. Litigating, even to victory, also entails massive business disruption. Companies are forced to disclose their most sensitive and top-secret technical and financial information and must divert key personnel from critical business tasks to provide information and testimony. The process is exceptionally burdensome, especially on technical staff. Document discovery and depositions seem endless.

Patent trolls know this and as a result, they sue companies in droves and make settlement demands designed to maximize their financial take while making it cheaper and less painful to settle than to devote the resources necessary to defeat their claims. The current system lets them do so even with claims that are unlikely to prevail on the merits. That is because, whether win lose or draw, the rules effectively insulate trolls from negative consequences except perhaps a lower return than expected from any given company in any given case. They can sue on tenuous claims and still come out ahead. And so the broken system with its attendant leverage allows trolls to extract billions in blackmail from U.S. companies and, in the final analysis, consumers.

The AIA Did Not Fix the Troll Problem

In September 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Though touted as “overhauling” the patent system, with respect to the nation’s troll problem the AIA was not reform in any meaningful sense. Anyone who says otherwise is

3

almost surely a patent lawyer or member of another group with a vested financial interest in preserving the status quo. Those groups successfully watered down the AIA to keep entrenched a system that continues to allow trolls to benefit unfairly, while businesses and society pay the high price in the form of major, unnecessary, and extremely burdensome costs.

The Constitution Requires a Change

Something must change. Common sense and the elimination of this blight on the economy are not the only reasons why. There is also a constitutional basis.

The Patent and Copyright Clause grants Congress the power “[t]o...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not science fiction and litigious arts. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (emphasis added)). But the current system allows trolls to pursue fantastic allegations—claims that would be laughed out of the room in actual scientific or technical circles—in endless litigation that taxes and taxes true innovators while making no meaningful contribution to society. Barnes & Noble’s experience exemplifies this and industry data confirms it. See, e.g., James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, “The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes” at 2, Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 12–34 (June 28, 2012) (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2091210) (estimating direct costs of troll litigation on economy at $29 billion for 2011 based upon study that included data from 82 companies and finding additional empirical support for earlier conclusion that “much of the cost borne by technology companies as they defend against NPE lawsuits is a social loss and not a mere transfer”). The system has lost its true north.

4

Barnes & Noble’s Experience Exemplifies the Problem

Barnes & Noble is uniquely positioned to expose the drain imposed by patent troll litigation and suggest solutions to achieve a material reduction. The company is currently adverse to patent trolls in nineteen cases.1 We have spent tens of millions of dollars in the last five years to defend against these suits. Yet Barnes & Noble has never received an adverse judgment in patent litigation.

These facts are possible only because the patent troll litigation Barnes & Noble faces is devoid of merit, but exposing that in the present system takes years, is very expensive, and is fraught with business disruption and risk. This causes Barnes & Noble to face dilemmas that no company should have to face once let alone repeatedly: spend millions and divert resources away from the business to defeat baseless claims in litigation or be mistaken for an easy mark; pay the ransom because the exorbitant demand is less than the enormous cost of defense.

Even the most plainly baseless lawsuits are expensive and can take years to defeat. In at least four cases, Barnes & Noble has faced litigation by patentees asserting the same theories on which they previously lost. In one case, for example, Barnes & Noble is alleged to infringe patents because BN.com uses the HTML language and returns search results other than exact matches. The patentee asserted these allegations against Barnes & Noble despite having tried and lost a case against other ecommerce retailers based on the same functional allegations levied against their websites. In two of these four cases, the patentees ceased pursuing claims against Barnes & Noble once the

5

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed their earlier losses. But in two others, the appeals are not yet final and although Barnes & Noble has filed dispositive motions, the litigations have carried on actively for years.

In two other recent cases, Barnes & Noble achieved victory at the district court level on summary judgment. In one such case, the Court awarded Barnes & Noble its costs—but the total awarded was less than $50K. The company expended millions to achieve that victory, but attorneys’ and expert fees are not recoverable as a matter of course.

Appeals routinely follow summary judgment victories, and Barnes & Noble’s experience has been no exception. The Federal Circuit now has a mandatory mediation program. In that program, Barnes & Noble has received demands for substantial settlement payments—even in cases that it won below. One such demand, for example, exceeded $3M. The settlement demands that patent trolls make on appeal, particularly in the wake of complete defeat, have nothing to do with the merits. They underscore the uncertainty and expense that accompany appeals and potential retrials in patent cases.

In a growing number of cases, patentees sue Barnes & Noble on multiple patents only to drop one or more of them before trial. This practice underscores that many patent claims are not made in good faith. Rather, plaintiffs frequently assert patents for additional leverage to force companies to expend significant resources mounting a defense on multiple fronts even when they know they will not ultimately prevail.

Barnes & Noble and other technology companies see countless lawsuits in which the asserted patents purport to cover products and technologies common to the entire industry. We face repeated allegations that anyone using Wi-Fi, anyone using 3G,

6

anyone using MP3, anyone with an e-commerce website, anyone using Ethernet, and, recently, anyone using InfiniBand technology, to name a few, is infringing and must pay a hefty price to license purportedly essential patents. The allegations sweep far beyond specific innovations to which a patent might legitimately lay claim.

What is more, the damages claims are grossly overblown. The costs of the components that implement the accused technology in NOOK devices are frequently a few dollars or less. Notwithstanding limited positive evolution in the damages case law, patent trolls continue to seek damages that far exceed those component costs even though the patent is worth at most a fraction of those costs. They invoke the outmoded Georgia- Pacific factors to pursue theories that have no valid economic basis claiming, for example, that a patent that purportedly improved some particular aspect of display technology or Wi-Fi entitles the assignee to a cut of all eContent sales made through Barnes & Noble’s NOOK devices. They wield the fruits of their prior extortion as swords, claiming that because others paid dearly to resolve or avoid litigation, the resulting settlement agreements are reliable evidence of a patent’s value.

Certain courts have started more reliably to preclude nonsensically overblown damages claims at trial. This does not seem to be happening uniformly in all jurisdictions or before all judges in any given jurisdiction, though. Therefore the threat of an excessive damages award remains present.

It is also still far too rare for courts to impose realistic bounds in the discovery process. They frequently permit discovery of extremely sensitive financial information even when governing Federal Circuit law renders the information irrelevant. Most district courts also do not bifurcate damages discovery, and therefore companies must

7

produce their most sensitive information even when the likelihood that they infringe a patent is extremely low.

Patent trolls have started suing Barnes & Noble in the International Trade Commission. After the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange2 appropriately made it virtually impossible for non-commercializing patentees to obtain an injunction, patent trolls began initiating ITC investigations because the agency has the power to issue exclusion orders barring the importation of products found to infringe a patent. But the ITC is not supposed to be a general intellectual property protection agency. It only has the power to protect a domestic industry for products protected by intellectual property. Even though its mandate is to protect trade, not patent trolls, the ITC and Federal Circuit have interpreted the agency’s jurisdiction too broadly, finding the requisite domestic industry based on patent licensing efforts alone.

FIVE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL WORK

1. Require Losing Patentees to Pay Costs and Expenses,
Including Attorneys’ Fees

A main reason the problem runs rampant is that patent trolls face virtually no downside. Although there are rules permitting parties to seek sanctions and recover attorneys’ fees, such awards are limited to the most egregious cases. Fee shifting tends to require litigation misconduct, not merely the pursuit of a weak case. This should change.

The bar for fee shifting should be much lower so that anyone initiating patent litigation would have to face the prospect of a genuine downside from choosing to pursue weak claims. Requiring plaintiffs that do not prevail to pay defense costs including

8

attorneys’ fees in patent cases would substantially reduce questionable litigation by appropriately aligning incentives to discourage it. This change would cause trolls to think twice before proceeding with questionable claims.

Fee shifting should be also available to defendants where patentees initially assert but then drop patents mid-stream. The current system imposes no penalty for such gamesmanship. Fee shifting would deter the assertion of weak patent claims made simply to drive up defense costs.

2. Require Actual Reduction to Practice and Commercialization

Many trolls litigate on paper patents—supposed inventions for which a working prototype was never built, let alone a commercial implementation. This invites arguments that the putative invention sweeps more broadly than anything the named inventor ever actually created. The alleged invention becomes a moving target. What was in actuality at best a minor improvement gets spun as a foundational patent for which an entire industry is taxed. This should change.

Strengthening standing requirements would be a step in the right direction. Standing to initiate litigation should require a patentee to have actually reduced the invention to practice and begun commercializing it. That would help ensure the existence of a real invention before others are excluded from commercializing their independent contributions, and it would help limit the scope of patent rights to what was actually invented and contributed to society in a meaningful way.

3. Cap Damages at the Amount Paid to Acquire a Patent

Most patent trolls are not small inventors. Rather, they are typically small companies held closely by lawyers or other investors, which acquired the patents they

9

assert through arms-length transactions. In the current system, patent acquisition by trolls frequently entails the payment of comparatively minor amounts to small inventors. The acquirers then use their resources in addition to the patents to extract huge sums from technology companies in litigation. There is a tremendous disconnect between what a patent is worth to an acquiring entity when dealing with a small inventor and what it becomes worth to that entity in subsequent litigation. This should change.

There is no reason a non-commercializing entity should be able to recover in litigation damages beyond what the entity paid to acquire the entire patent. Provided the acquisition was accomplished in an arms-length transaction, the purchase price should serve as a cap to any subsequent damages award.

4. Require Clear and Convincing Proof that an Invention is New and Non-
obvious for a Patent to Issue

In the current system, patent examiners issue patents if they conclude that an invention is new and non-obvious in light of the prior art. From that point forward, the patent enjoys a presumption of validity even though time and resource constraints mean that the prior art picture before an examiner is necessarily incomplete. Once a patent issues, a challenger accused of infringement can be found to infringe based upon a preponderance of the evidence but must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

Whether or not the standard for proving invalidity should change—the Supreme Court declined to alter it in 2011 in Microsoft v. i4i—this same level of clear and convincing proof should be required to issue a patent in the first instance. The Patent Office would issue fewer patents that are not truly new and nonobvious if examiners had

10

to be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. Real inventions worthy of the “embarrassment of an exclusive patent”3 should have no problem satisfying that standard.

5. Keep Trolls Out of the ITC

ITC exclusion orders have become available to entities that have contributed nothing meaningful to society or the economy. The ITC should be off limits to anyone asserting a patent it is failing to commercialize. Nor should licensing efforts alone suffice to establish the requisite domestic industry for that special forum, which should be protecting companies from unfair trade practices, not fostering them.

11

CONCLUSION

Barnes & Noble respectfully asks the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice to take prompt action to solve the patent troll litigation problem. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Dated: March 1, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

Gene DeFelice
[email]
Vice President, General Counsel &
Corporate Secretary

Bradley A. Feuer
[email]
Vice President, Assistant General Counsel
Barnes & Noble, Inc. [address]

Elizabeth Brannen
[email]
Director, Intellectual Property
Barnes & Noble, Inc.
[address]

__________
1 The number rises to twenty-one when “practicing entity trolls” or PETs—operating companies that enforce patents against non-competitors who commercialize technology they do not—are counted.

2 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

3 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (Aug. 13, 1813).

12


  


Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:07 PM EDT
...

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here please
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:08 PM EDT
...

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks here please
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT
Please include a link to the story in your post in case the news pick scrolls
off the Growlaw home page.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES here please
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:10 PM EDT
Thank you for your help and support.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Common Sense Suggestions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:22 PM EDT
No chance of those getting through.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

This will start a forest fire
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:56 PM EDT

But it is fairly sensible. The Prior Art issue has bedeviled Hardware, Software, Bioproducts, and Processes for years. Nestlé is currently trying to ram through a patent on a traditional herbal treatment for example. The company is upset at being caught gaming the system, and denies it was doing anything wrong. Of course it still wants the patent to issue.

Then there is Johnson Matthey with their NO2 producing CRT device. Every device before that produced NO2, so exactly why JM was issued a patent (JM knew this before they applied) is unknown.

The filing will upset certain people. I can't wait to hear the screaming.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM EDT
The proposal "Require Losing Patentees to Pay Costs and Expenses, Including
Attorneys’ Fees" would dissuade trolls to some extent. Unfortunately, it
would for all intents and purposes take patent protection away from entities
without deep pockets, in particular, lone inventors of the type who were the
intended beneficiaries of patent protection. Imagine such an inventor has a net
worth of several hundred thousand dollars and has a patent infringed by a large
corporation. The corporation could conspicuously run up its legal costs to the
point where a loss by the small inventor would be ruinous. The situation is
nearly that bad now, since the cost of merely prosecuting an infringement case
is already extremely high, but at least that cost is controllable by the
plaintiff, there is a downside limit. Under B&N's proposal there is no way
to bring an infringement suit, even a valid one, without exposing oneself to an
unlimited downside risk.

The base issue is that patent issues are being resolved slowly and expensively
through the legal system, in which asymmetric resources often determine the
final outcome, instead of being settled quickly and inexpensively, for instance,
by a board of those "skilled in the (relevant) arts". The vast legal
costs in this process would best be eliminated by removing the lawyers and the
courts completely from the determination of whether or not an invention is
obvious, or infringing, by referring the matter to neutral arbiters who work in
the field.

It would also help if the patent office raised the bar many notches, so that
patents were not issued for trivial inventions. Since the PTO seem to be
incapable of doing this by itself, perhaps they should be limited by law to
issuing 10,000 patents a year, all patents to be issued at the end of the year,
and these only after an outside board has ordered all of that year's
"acceptable by the PTO" patents by significance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One of the truest statements
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT
"entities that have contributed nothing meaningful to society
or the economy"

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think they are out of their league
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:17 AM EDT
We face repeated allegations that anyone using Wi-Fi, anyone using 3G, anyone using MP3, anyone with an e-commerce website, anyone using Ethernet, and, recently, anyone using InfiniBand technology, to name a few, is infringing and must pay a hefty price to license purportedly essential patents.
Essentially, they are arguing that no patents should be enforceable on anything that is useful enough to become ubiquitous.

That's basically a "no patents whatsover, please" stance.

Many of the things they list here tend to involve hardware catered to a specific purpose using specific technology and circuitry. If you can't patent those, you can't patent anything.

Of course, this specific list is far too unspecific to figure out what kind of patents they are objecting to. If they complain about "Wifi" being patentable, is it something like "use of a transmitter/receiver in a portable computer to access communication media via a transmitter/receiver in a fixed housing" or something similarly broad and ridiculous? Or is it something like specific circuitry, or specific modulations?

Similarly with "Ethernet" and "MP3". If any patent required to implement them is supposed to be unenforceable, than the premise is basically "nothing that works well enough to become a de-facto standard should be patentable", and then we might as well stop patents altogether, not just software patents.

In light of the patent quagmire, the proposal of Richard Stallman to except implementations on general-purpose computers has some merit.

One sickness of software patents is that, in essence, too many people are successful by taking something trivial and tacking "on a computer" onto it.

However, computing devices are becoming ubiquitous so it isn't a solution either to prohibit anything to be patentable if you merely can implement it on a computer, or even if nothing but implementation on a computing device makes any sense.

Personally, I find the proposal by Stallman to just exclude implementations running on general purpose computers from patent coverage an interesting compromise. However, things like "Smartphones" can be reasonably considered "general computing devices" in some respects and specialized devices in other respects, so it might be difficult to get to any clear definitions.

But the rough demarcation line, however it would be drawn exactly, is worth thinking about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:39 AM EDT
If you look at the list of companies that have put forward submissions to
the Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/pae/index.shtm one finds Microsoft's
name. Curious then that it is in the news today that ZTE just handed over
a pile of money in a typical Microsoft intellectual property shakedown.
This double standard would be laughable if it weren't so ugly. Way to stay
classy Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Except.
Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:00 AM EDT

Suggestion 2 ("Require Actual Reduction to Practice and Commercialization") is seductive (and one we've all come up with here many times). But it's too simplistic, with obvious unwanted consequences as it stands.

The problem that this suggestion is aimed at seems to be entities that exist simply to litigate. Simply requiring that a patent be "reduced to practice and commercialized", by contrast, impacts anyone who has not yet brought - may not even be able to bring - their legitimate patent to actualisation. In particular, like the current system, it plays heavily in favour of large businesses over smaller ones (and even more so over individuals).

This time the issue is resources - who has the resources needed to bring a real patent to practice (or worse, to the market). If you don't have them yourself, or can't find someone to with them prepared to do the job on your behalf, you effectively don't have a patent. The big guys can take your invention, productise it and make millions from it. You can't get a penny, because under this framing of the law you don't have standing to claim. You may have been perfectly willing to license it, but they simply weren't prepared to pay (or offered derisory terms, safe in the knowledge that your choices were to take their terms or get nothing). Effectively you'd be penalised, not for any trolling behaviour, but for simply being too small. That's not what's needed, any more than the current system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:08 AM EDT
Sweden already has #1 and #2. Those two alone aids greatly in limitng the amount
of patents. And the Swedush Patents and Registration Office is quite restrictive
with what they grant.

Still, we are #3 in the world when it comes to patents per capita, but without
patent trolls.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation/patents-by-population.aspx
(but #5 according to
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2011/10/worlds-leading-nations-innov
ation-and-technology/224/#slide5)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble's Common Sense Suggestions to the FTC and DOJ on Patent Trolls ~pj
Authored by: GrueMaster on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:40 AM EDT
And this is why I bought the Nook Color over any other tablet at the time. And
today, I just bought the Nook HD Tablet. I will continue to support B&N as
long as they stand up to bullies from Texas and Redmond, Washington.

---
You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )