|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
When the law-makers are lawyers, what do you expect? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
It very much seems to me to be a counter to the Shield Act. Half of what it
is suggesting is already occuring with the Shield Act:
If it's decided the
patent is "patentedly obviously" invalid then the patent owner is up for a debt
to pay the defense costs (at least to some extent).
But if said patent
owner is able to prosecute their patent 10 times before a Court decides the
patent was obviously invalid - and thereby require the defense to pay their
costs - they are able to pad their pockets with well more then sufficient funds
before they have to pay a defendant.
This suggestion only re-establishes
the "status quo" that existed before the Shield Act was implemented:
A
greater likelihood defendants will decide to pay the license fee (whether or not
the patent is valid, or they even infringe in the first place, or they even have
a product/service that could come close to being considered as possibly
infringing) rather then defend!
In my humble opinion: Terrible, terrible
idea!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
If you're correct - and the counter to Shield is correct - then it's more
then just a counter to Shield. It's an attempt to corrupt Shield.
It
will actually pay them something they haven't previously had access
to:
Court Costs on top of trebble damages!
Wowsers. In the context of
a recent lawsuit:
1.x billion in damages plus (for example) 50 million in
Court Costs
I hope Congress is paying attention.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|