|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, June 23 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
I was going to ask why the asserted patent claims were assumed to be in the high
end tail (why not the low end tail or in the middle?), but I had to rush off to
get the exhaust silencers on my car (US: mufflers on my auto) replaced. I have
been fretting about not making that point ever since. You got in there, first.
Since you mention statistics...
Where was I? Oh, yes, I forgot something else. I put it in the title, but forgot
to pose the question. The PatVal report was of the distribution of value among a
random portfolio of European patents. The sums of money being discussed in the
Cockburn report were a price. Cockburn's report needed to explain how the
European patent values were derived in the PatValue report and link that to the
butt-for analysis price.
I have a suggested answer: The values were the amount of licence revenue each
patent received. For the report to have any analytical value, the licensing of
patents as a general pool (the pool extortion value) needs to be distributed
according to the likelihood of the individual patents in the pool actually being
infringed. Also, the total revenues of the companies being extorted is key. For
individual licensed patents, the nexus value to the licensed product revenue
could be estimated. But, you know it wasn't.
The Constitution says that it is the value of the invention that should be made
available to the inventor and not the receipts of extortion. There is no such
constitution in the European states that are the subject of the PatVal report
and so the price/value numbers and distribution will be completely different.
As an executive summary, the PatVal report isn't worth the paper it's written
on. The Cockburn report is, by comparison, statistically...
Where was I? Oh yes, valueless.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
