If I were to make the rules, I would make minimum infringement much higher that the $1000 for which that company is suing consumers, such as at least $50,000, which I think would take away a lot of the fear of patents. That company is the poster child of abusive patent litigants. http://patent-counselors.com/?p=224
Yes, for a limited time (20 years), product competitors get to shut each other out of their inventions, it's been that way in England for almost 1000 years and always that way in the U.S. since the U.S. became a separate nation. If it makes you happy, the 2006 decision Ebay v. Merc prohibited injunctions by patent owners who do not make products in that industry, so they cannot enforce a monopoly.
Yes, the possibility that we could obtain some ROI in the event that a big computer company stole our inventions and put them in their own products and outsold us using their superior marketing and financial power was a factor in our original investment decision 6 years ago. Patents did help us put nearly a million $ in investment in our R&D over 5 years ago, so yes, patents were an incentive. As Pres. Lincoln said "the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_patent. App developers wouldn't want patents because they have a short time horizon, but we were in this for the long haul.
BTW - read my other posts here, we do have sales; just atarted sales in 2014; but we are still worried about a large tech company squashing us with superior marketing and financial power. We are involved in voice control of The Internet of Things, and we know from CES that large companies have a huge interest in this market. If they could, they would reverse engineer everything for $100K and steal us blind. We have worked in the computer industry for a long time and have seen that happen to a lot of companies along the way.
My guess is that someone on this board wants big tech companies to steal the inventions of small companies. Where did you ever get the notion that the company with the best technology always wins in the marketplace ? There are many forums of competition; such as technology, marketing, finance and patents. Patent protection is written into the U.S. Constitution, but not technological innovation, marketing prowess or financial prowess.
Thanks for helping out against Masnick. Looks like we understand patents similar.
Masnick doesn't understand that patents are a different forum of competition, amoung other forums such as engineering, marketing and finance. He foolishly assumes that the best product wins the market, you know, like Microsoft Windows (ha ha !) He seems to have forgotten that if Microsoft hadn't given $250 mil to Apple in 1999, Apple would have gone under.
The gov't shouldn't be taxing real estate. And in fact, the gov't does tax patents by charging periodic maintenance fees.
But, I agree that the boundaries of patents are not as clear-cut as real estate. There is no database that one can use to definitely determine in a cost of a few hundred dollars that we are not infringing. And patents can overlap each other, much different than real estate. And that might be the one difference that causes so many anti-property rights people to hate patents.
I have noticed that the biggest rejection of patents is from left-wing anti-property rights people and from right-wing anti-competitive big company people. Politics does make strange bed-fellows.
Well Mr. Masnick - I will be damned if I tell you the name of my company considering your irrational hated-filled posts on this website. Last thing I need is to have you drag our company's name through the mud because we support patents and you hate patents. Yep, I am very concerned that some big company will take our good ideas and integrate them in to their products and use their better marketing and financial resources to quash us. Where did you ever get the idea that the company with the best products win in the marketplace? What planet are you from ?
We have a product that is being sold, as I said "We are just now starting sales" and we have 2 beta installations that have replaced competitors products that cost nearly $20K for each installation; with very good reviews, but which is all the more to fear that one of the large tech companies will steal our good ideas.
I think you are just a shill for the big tech companies in the Consumer Electronics Association. Whether you are a dupe or paid by them is immaterial, you are doing evil work for the CEA.
Anyway, Qualcomm is starting to fight back against those of you who support the theft of other people's good products.
I call BS on you idea that somehow good implementation of technical ideas automatically makes for success in the marketplace.
We are worried about a whole bunch of companies copying our ideas. We are just now starting sales; and in fact have resisted shipping product until it was ready for prime-time; we could have had sales 2-3 years ago, if that is all we wanted; but we wanted a perfected product. Yes, we like patent enforcement companies because they might be our only path to revenue if we fail in the marketplace. Hopefully we have enough of a niche market where we can build cash reserves before competitors start infringing and we need to sue; otherwise, we will have to sell/license our patents to a patent enforcement company. Thanks for you concern that we are infringing, but our review indicates that we are not infringing.
Yep, when a company is new, they really can't enforce their patents against other companies unless they sell their patents for a patent enforcement company such as Intellectual Ventures, but out company expects to have the revenue to support litigation against infringers in 2015, so we are glad we started filing patents in early 2009. We planted good seed when we could, and harvest starts soon.
Now that 95% of all patents in Inter Partes review in the Patent Office are being invalidated, there is nothing to stop China from stealing our best ideas and putting them in their products, at bottom dollar prices: http://patent-counselors.com/?p=189
I own 20% of a tech startup involved in speech recognition, and we are very worried that one of the big tech companies involved in The Internet of Things will steal us blind of our inventions once we have proved that a market exists for our products. We have been to CES, and have seen how much $ the big tech companies have put into their exhibits, and we know that with about that money, the could reverse engineer and steal all of our good ideas. Why wouldn't they if they could ? Do you really think that the ethics of Google have improved much in the last 2 years?
This new legislation is doesn't matter much anyway because the law from 2011 (the America Invents Acts) set up a new procedure called Inter Partes Review in which 95% of all patent claims are being invalidated. There will be a lot less patent lawsuits in 2014 than last year.
The Medimmmune decision in 2007 made it impossible for patent owners to just call up an infringer and work out a deal over the phone; now, everything ends up in court:
"MedImmune lowered the bar for determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction in all patent cases. Since MedImmune, the Federal Circuit has found jurisdiction in nearly every case involving communications between parties. This makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients on what they can say to competitors without triggering an actual controversy, and a potential lawsuit."