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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) »

December 06, 2015

Comments

I reject the "divide and conquer" aspect that gives "credence" to the view that the "troll" problem is in but one art field.

Without the presumption it does seem like the world's most expensive registration system.

paytoplay,

Interesting observation - and to that let me add that THAT expense is in the several BILLION dollar range.

Innovator money in the Billions is what supports the Office and the patent prosecution paradigm.

If in fact we have devolved into nothing more than EFFECTIVELY a registration system and a chance at "proving" real validity at some second stage of enforcing a patent, perhaps it is high time to revisit the model that we have.

If we just want registration and notice without presumption of validity, I could help you set up a system for a ONE TIME (not annual) cost in the low tens of million dollars range, staff that system on an ongoing basis for less than a million a year, and let the ANNUAL Billions be retained by innovators.

The chances of this option being seriously considered? Well, let's just say that I remain skeptical that THAT number will climb over the current rate of actual patent claims seeing lawsuits as a percentage of all possible claims being enforced in a court of law (that would be far less than 2%, by the way).

"I reject the "divide and conquer" aspect that gives "credence" to the view that the "troll" problem is in but one art field."

Too bad reality indicates that "the troll problem" is mostly in "one art field". The reason that patent trolling occasionally leaks into other art fields is, of course, due to the same fundamental issues that claims in that "one art field" frequently present to the system.

But go ahead and "reject" all this! People really care what you think.

As for Jim Greenwood and his complaint about "thirty IPRs filed by hedge funds" (wow! thirty! it takes three four-year-olds to count that high!), let's wait and see how those IPRs turn out. There's plenty of garbage patents out there in biotech. Heck, there was this one filed by Prometheus that was so obvious that Kevin and Don refused to talk about it ...

MM, aka Malcolm, I invite you to give me a legal or factual basis for your reply.

Of course, you have nothing but your "feelings," and we both know that.

"I invite you to give me a legal or factual basis for your reply."

You need a "factual basis" for the statement that patent tr0lling is almost solely a feature of the computer-implemented arts?

First I want to hear you come out and say that you don't believe it. Then I want you to tell everyone what country you live in and how many years you've been following the patent system. That way when I provide you with the answer we can all see what an incredibly dishonest human being you are.

Malcolm,

I will take your non-answer as your typical nonsense.

Once again, I invite you to provide a legal or factual basis for your comment, instead of one based on your feelings.

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 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 31