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
Juristant #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

« 2016 BIO International Convention | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

May 29, 2016

Comments

While there may be something worthwhile in the story as a whole, the beginning of the story is so mired in the "Tr011s are bad" propaganda that I just did not make it through.

Rather than buying into the propaganda that the patent laws themselves need to be changed, perhaps a closer look at who started the meme of "patent tr011," and who benefits from the meme would be more in order.

Stronger - not weaker - patent rights are the answer.

Hey Skeptical,

I'm with you. The use of this pejorative phrase simply inflames the conversation, but doesn't advance it.

It seems to me that the author is trying to suggest that the T-word problem in the USA extends also to Europe when in fact it doesn't. It's overwhelmingly a problem exclusive to the USA, whatever Boscheck and The Economist might otherwise wistfully suggest.

See, in the middle of his piece is one sentence that starts with the T-problem but ends with a reference to FRAND licensing of standards-essential patents. After that, the author focusses exclusively on FRAND issues, complaining that the EU is leaving it up to the courts to decide whether the offered royalty rate is fair and reasonable. But folks, really, is this complaint from the author in any way fair and reasonable? I think not.

I suppose the author has been reading up about IPCom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCom

because I don't know of any other PAE with a busy program of litigation in Europe. IPCom is the only one with a portfolio (they bought the Robert Bosch telecoms portfolio) that comes anywhere near plausible.

I see that the author is not a professor of law but of economics. Isn't that known as "the dismal science"? Is that why he worries about the difficulties and uncertainties in setting patent licence royalty rates and supposes that the courts are there to set them?

Should I read his full Paper? I remain to be convinced that it would be worthwhile.


The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2019

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