Appologies for the bad form of responding to myself, but my response to the suggestion that somehow a claim of Patent infringement carries less of a cost then a claim of Copyright infringement leads me to an interesting question.

Ghandi is quoted as having said:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!

First you fight them, then you laugh at them, then you ignore them, then you win!

Now we (general we again) are starting to laugh at them. For the simplicity of the arguments and how easy the arguments are shown to be invalid. Mainly because we've learned where to point to the truth and can easily do so with little other response.

I can imagine a time when that laughter builds and Congress hears regular laughter at their suggestions to increase patent protection in favor of patent holders. I don't think Congress would like hearing regular laughter from their constituents.

Eventually I can see us ignoring those who present such ideas - Society in general already having a better understanding of the preposterous nature of the suggestions.

Until eventually, those who were once fought, then laughed at and then ignored decide they need to go find something more productive to do with their time.

*grin* I sure hope Ghandi's statement rings true in the reverse as well!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

if software in the form of object code were covered exclusively by patents rather than copyrights, you wouldn't have to fear five or even six figure statutory penalities

Nope... you just have to fear a starting defense cost in the 7 figure1 category to defend against a patent so generically defined that it can be applied against products sold in the market 2 decades prior.

1) It's currently estimated that the average defense cost of a single patent before entering trial is $2 Million.

Listen once, and hear me good, as I say it in my best Col. Sherman T. Potter-like voice: that's pure HORSE HOCKEY. Why the double hockey sticks would you pay "a starting defense cost in the 7 figure category" to defend yourself, as an individual, against a lawsuit alleging damages of less than 3 figures? It seems to me that you know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

We're talking about damages against an individual making copies of a patented vs. a copyrighted work. The statutory damages are found here. I would use the statements of people here who say that they have no respect for intellectual property rights as evidence to justify the highest possible statutory damage award of $30,000 for a single copyrighted work, and of evidence of willfulness to justify even higher damages of $150,000 for a single work where the infringement was willful. Not only that, but the government might be able to make out a case against you for criminal copyright infringement, the law for which may be found here.

On the other hand, there are no criminal penalties for patent infringement, and the damages allowed are only those that compensate for the infringement or a reasonable royalty, whichever is greater. Even if these are increased three times for willful infringment, an individual might lose only around a hundred dollars or so -- at most -- for a typical patent infringement, if that person is sued at all. I'm sure that every patent owner and every top-notch patent litigator are staying up late at night watching your every move just to pounce on you for juicy damages like that!

So you go ahead and spend your seven figure lawyer fee defending yourself against losses that might range into the upper two or lower three figures. If that's the way people reason around here, then it's no wonder that there are so many hysterical posts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]