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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
High heat in the kitchen (from Lodsys, and ail their victims) means it *will* be reformed... | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can it be reformed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
I'd subtract the bit about asserting invalid patents
constituting willful fraud - that's probably too much.
Patents, in theory, can serve a useful purpose by preventing
a gigantic company from simply duplicating a smaller
company's product. Asserting a reasonable patent and then
learning about prior art shouldn't be a gigantic risk.

But, I'd add...
1. Don't waste the PTO's time: if rejected for any reason,
forfeit filing fee. Pay again if refiled after revisions.

2. No presumption of validity unless subjected to expensive
review. Charge 1M USD, 500k goes to patent office, 500k goes
to anyone submitting prior art or other convincing evidence
of invalidity. Required prior to claim assertion.

3. Patentholder must post 1k bond. Anyone, for 200 USD fee,
may submit evidence of invalidity. If successful, bond is
forfeited in proportion to claims invalidated.

Unfortunately, none of these remove the 'uncertainty issue'
where there are a ton of probably, but not certainly,
invalid patents that could theoretically be asserted against
any successful endeavor.

--Erwin

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

High heat in the kitchen (from Lodsys, and ail their victims) means it *will* be reformed...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:22 PM EDT
And (even though I'm inventor) I want to see that thought out here, first, so as
to get *better* reform.
(Christenson)


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )