E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) | Main | USPTO Revises Rules to Facilitate Access to Applications and File Contents by Foreign IP Offices »

October 28, 2015

Comments

Hey Kevin,

By gosh, "hell hath frozen over"! BTW, we do have the Flying Pigs Marathon here in the Queen City.

Honestly, I think it would behoove us to send your comments as well. The reason is that the paradox you point out can only be resolved in Congress if the law applies only to "patent trolls" and not to universities and colleges, which would effectively grant constitutional rights to one patent owner over another based on whether the originator was a university or a business. There is a point where a right becomes so restricted by the law that it is no longer a right, which is where current patent reform is headed.

As an inventor who successfully licensed technology over twenty years after our business failed, not every NPE is a troll, notwithstanding the defendant's (and Congressional) take on the matter. Prosecuting our applications required every remaining dollar we had. At one point, we considered allowing the defendant's defamation to come into trial, because we believed so strongly that after hearing our story, the jury would decide that though we may have been struggling businessmen, we still had rights to our patents, and that calling the struggling small inventor or failed start-up a patent troll would be seen for what it has become.

It is not news to me that big companies view patent infringement as a cost of doing business. They don't get overly concerned of a big final judgment, as in the recent Apple case, because rarely, if ever, do those ever reach final judgment and a collectible payout.

Although in general I agree with Mr. Nocera's op-ed, he is factually wrong with respect to say that no one would call WARF a patent troll. In fact, Mark Cuban, one of the people financing the EFF, called WARF a patent troll in the comments section of a IP Watchdog article:

"Mark cuban October 14, 2015 8:55 pm
Some of the logic is crazy. If someone breaks in? Turn to the legal system for partents, not the break in

But Gene oh Gene. Look at the date of the IOHAWk filing.

And Mr Stein. As far as the EFF, I obviously agree with them . The number of times I have asked them or told them to write aBout a topic, person, place or thing

ZERO

I think I have had maybe 3 interactions other than them asking for more money over the years

I don’t need to dictate anything. The material is plenty

And of course today we had another victory for the trolls over apple with WARF

An instruction set from 1998. I’m sure apple search for every potential option and stole the idea from the inventor and they waited more than a decade so it would appear it wasn’t willful, right ?

Justice was served everyone, right ?"

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30