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
Patent Pool - the real issue | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patent Pool
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:49 AM EST
I enjoyed your discussion and felt it was a useful overview appropriate to the topic. However, I have a couple of observations to make...

the US Constitution ... says that the inventor should be rewarded for the value of the invention because of the work and skill necessary to produce that specific invention.

I would appreciate it if you could be more specific here, as what follows derives from this. How is this worded in the Constitution? How would you differentiate "the work and skill necessary to produce that specific invention" from "Sweat of the brow" intellectual property law doctrine as related to copyright law? (This doctrine was rejected in the US).

By agreeing to base 'damages' on a recreation of the licensing negotiation that would have taken place had the parties actually negotiated is the court accepting that the Constitution and the intrinsic value of the patented invention count for nothing and that the commercial value is what is important.

I am not sure I follow your distinction between "the intrinsic value of the patented invention" and its "commercial value". A patent has no intrinsic value. In fact, the value of anything is only equal to what the market will bear.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patent Pool - the real issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 11:24 AM EST
If an industry creates cross-licensing agreements for it's members then the cost
of entry for anyone else is prohibitive without those same cross-licensing
agreements. Another way to kill competition.

[ 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 )