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
A Proposed Response to the USPTO's Topic 1 Question on Functional Language ~pj | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A Proposed Response to the USPTO's Topic 1 Question on Functional Language ~pj
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:07 AM EST
I just don't buy this view.

Company A is sued for patent infringement. If they are found liable the damages
are 100 millions. If on top of that the developers has read the patent the
damages is 300 millions. There is no way the increment in productivity is worth
200 millions.

It is the *legal* department which sets the policy that developers should not
read patents for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph. This is evidence
that lawyers understand this costs/benefits analysis, assumptions that patents
are good notwithstanding. Lawyers do not think the way you say they do.

The argument is not that the value of patents is zero. This argument is
worthless because it is way too easy to falsify. Any value no matter how small
or insignificant is greater than zero. This is why we are not arguing that.

The argument is that the costs of patents far outweigh the benefits. This means
we have to talk about the cost side of the equation. If we follow your
suggestions all references to costs are pulled out of the argument. This is a
loosing strategy.

[ 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 )