You completely lost me in your use of the word trawl in the sentences you're
trying to convey.
Trawl: to drag a net through water to catch fish.
That's the basic concept.
If a patent pool trawls patent owners for
'essential patents' what are they
essential for?
I'm really having
a difficult time parsing your intende concept in that.
[snip]... patent
owners for 'essential patents' what are they essential for?
That's easy
enough to understand. In the context of a standards body I'd interpret what
you're trying to say as:
A standards body is asking patent owners to declare
their patents that impact the standard!
But I really have no idea what you
mean by the use of a "patent pool trawling" context. You obviously don't mean
the patent pool itself, that's an object. You could be refering to the entity
who put together the pool. But I'm completely lost on parsing what you're
trying to convey with that.
As a result, I don't quite grasp what you
mean with:
However, patent pools that canvas for
essential patents
and quote the target technology are universally patent misusers.
Do
you mean:
Patent pools that deliberately seek out patents that end up
covering the standard but were not disclosed to the standards
committee?
Basically submarine patents that happen to end up being
SEPs?
If that's what you mean, then I agree with that:
When an entity
is dishonest with the standards body and doesn't disclose the patent (so they
don't have to make promises) or someone applies for a patent after the fact and
the USPTO grants it - this is clear Patent Abuse!
Then ya, I absolutely
agree. If that's not what you meant, I'm completely lost on what you tried to
say.
But that just confirms my position:
I don't disagree with you
that there is patent Misuse. I also don't disagree that at least some SEP's
have been misused and there are likely to be more.
I disagree
with:
SEP's = patent misuse!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
