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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« RNAi Patent Revoked by EPO | Main | USPTO News: PTO Announces "Triway" Pilot Program »

July 14, 2008

Comments

Just another guy opining on something he knows nothing about. Guys like this are the reason the economy is so screwed up.

From the article: "These are shocking findings, but they point to the solution. New drugs require great specificity to earn a patent, whereas patents are often granted to broad, thus vague, innovations in software, communications and other technologies."
So whats the solution pal? Greater specificity? How again does apportioning damages get you there?

His comments about the total profits from patents in the last eight years is $4 B is laughable. Where is this statistic from? Some big pharma companies are earning close to (more than?) that for a single product per year.

BT:

Thanks for pointing out the "[n]ew drugs require great specificity to earn a patent" comment. I wanted to work that into the post, but like a number of other statements in the article, I was not sure what the author meant.

Thanks for your comment.

Don

"Small inventors feel the brunt of the uncertainty costs, since bigger companies only pay for rights they think the system will protect"

In other words, even with the current system WITHOUT damage apportionement big companies step on small guys all the time...
I imagine how wonderful things will be after damages are apportioned

Let's see: the apportioned damages calculated by the court for e.g. some infringing functionality in MShit Windoze OS is 1 mil but the cost of multi-year litigation against MShit is at least 4-5 mil
Who will take this case to litigate on a contingency basis ? Any takers ?
If they want to lower damages paid out to patent holders they have to criminalize at least willful patent infringement
If patent litigation stays a civil matter damages have to be high enough to discourage big capitalized entities from stepping on smaller competitors. Period.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

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