Patent Awards Tripled Last Year; Patent Attorneys Thrilled
from the and-you-wonder-why... dept
Wonder why we’re seeing so many stories about bogus patent lawsuits these days? Usually they’re either by companies who have done nothing to actually advance the market or who were unable to actually find a reasonable market for their products. Almost always, the patents have been overly broad, covering ideas that were quite obvious steps forward in the marketplace. But, patent infringement lawsuits are a growth business. In 2006, juries awarded approximately $1 billion in patent damages, which nearly tripled the amount from 2005. Note that this doesn’t even include the $612 million NTP scored from RIM, since that was a settlement, rather than a case finally decided by the courts. While settlement information often isn’t public, it likely pushes that $1 billion much, much higher, as many firms now recognize that it’s cheaper to settle (even against ridiculous claims) than to fight. Not surprisingly, many of the biggest jury awards come from every patent attorney’s favorite district court in Marshall, Texas. Unfortunately, the Bloomberg article looking at this trend decides to only quote patent attorneys who think this trend is a good thing. They claim that it shows how the system works, rather than how it shows that billions (if you add in settlements and legal fees) were wasted on legal disputes rather than actual innovation.
Comments on “Patent Awards Tripled Last Year; Patent Attorneys Thrilled”
Those billions might also have contributed to compensation for the original innovators.
Unlikely, but just a theory.
this is a problem.
but what to do?
Sure, a bad problem.
How can we usefully take this debate forward though? It’s one of Mikes pet hates, and mine too, but I feel pointless going over the same old ground saying that it’s a fault of unethical, overpaid predatory lawyers, that the patent system is fundamentally broken and that our countries are all going to suffer economic damage because of it. It get’s tiring.
What are the real options? Anyone?
Somebody got a virus that only kills lawyers?
Is there a way to force the issue to a head?
Anybody want to put up the money to buy a patent that will cause
catastrophic problems for a major player and use the publicity to highlight the absurdity and force reform? Would that be legal?
Or do we just sit here and fiddle while Rome burns, waiting for China and India to kick us back into the 20th Century?
🙁
Re: but what to do?
How can we usefully take this debate forward though? It’s one of Mikes pet hates, and mine too, but I feel pointless going over the same old ground saying that it’s a fault of unethical, overpaid predatory lawyers, that the patent system is fundamentally broken and that our countries are all going to suffer economic damage because of it. It get’s tiring.
Sometimes you need to keep showing a bunch of examples before people take it seriously.
What are the real options? Anyone?
We’ve discussed some in the past. Basically the system needs to be reformed by people who actually understand the two competing forces — one which encourages invention, and the other that slows down innovation. Coming up with a better system that balances the two things is key.
To be honest, at this point, I believe that any attempt at patent reform by those in power would likely make the system worse, rather than better — because too many people fundamentally misunderstand patents.
So, no, it’s not about sitting and fiddling while Rome burns, but there does need to be more awareness of the actual problems with the system, before we can reasonably discuss real solutions.
Re: Re: but what to do?
“We’ve discussed some in the past. Basically the system needs to be reformed by people who actually understand the two competing forces — one which encourages invention, and the other that slows down innovation. Coming up with a better system that balances the two t
hings is key.”
I have not heard anyone openly express the sentiment that there is a balancing force designed to moderate innovation Mike, I’m very glad to hear you say that because I get called a kook and conspiracy theorist for raising it. Yes, part of the system wishes to maintain control by regulating innovation. But if you include convergence and exponential theories like those of Kurtzweil it’s obvious that there is a collision of cultures in the offing. Can governments and industry ever really hope to moderate innovation? Is that not an arrogant position to even assume it is possible? Would they not be better to “ride the wave” too.
“To be honest, at this point, I believe that any attempt at patent reform by those in power would likely make the system worse, rather than better — because too many people fundamentally misunderstand patents.”
I agree, but I am impatient, angry and radicalised by the present nonsense and fairly blatent abuse of the system. The big hope I see is coming from scientists in the pharmo sector who are openly rebelling and ignoring patents. This is a far more emotive area since lives depend on cheap drugs and public opinion falls quickly and easily behind them. People understand technology like software much less, assume it must be very difficult and complex and therefore patents are probably justified in that domain. They can see that patenting a plant extract is wrong and immoral, but not that patenting the multiplication operator is equally absurd.
I take a revolutionary approach rather than an evolutionary one, I don’t believe the current status quo can be “educated” away, it must be firmly challenged. At some point though we need to stop rallying and start to mobilise.
“So, no, it’s not about sitting and fiddling while Rome burns, but there does need to be more awareness of the actual problems with the system, before we can reasonably discuss real solutions.”
Great, keep the debate going. Try not to post stories that merely inflame, but ones that attract good debate – actually yu do , already , a very good job of that.
Re: Re: Re: but what to do?
Hey, misanthropic humansit ,
Just shoot yourself, fucking moron.
When in Rome...
Learn Chinese.
The writing is on the wall.
Re: When in Rome...
I read it Ajax. It said live on your knees or die on your feet.
I want something less defeatist.
I love Chinese food, and Indian too, but this OUR fucking country man.
I do not recognise the authority of any man who tells me what I may or may not think, create or innovate. I prefer a straight fight, and I’m prepared to take it right to them.
What do you say soldier? Any constructive ideas on how to take this enemy down?
Re: Re: When in Rome...
this OUR fucking country man.
Well only for about 500 years, Native Americans been here for at least 15 thousand years.
Whiteys STOLE this land – so fuck you and your Chinese food.
I’m glad we got lawyers, cause we’re gonna evict some of you bastards off our ancestors graves….and please stop by your nearest casino to contribute to our lawyer fee…lmfao
we should fight them, i have brass knuckles
reposted by misanthropic humanist
(I hope you don’t mind me repotting this here Tyshaun, imho it’s insightful and relevant)
Tyshaun wrote:
Not being a lawyer I did a search on patent law and found this site:
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
What troubles me is how I’ve heard so many people assert that “the purpose of patents is…” when after reading this article the only assertion I can comfortable make about what the patent system is intended for is that it is completely dependent on the prevailing times. The article mentions that the original framers were very pro patent, however at various points in history (like the depression) patents have been seen as monopolistic and have fallen out of favor.
Given the general pendulum nature of how patents have been historically viewed in this country I would think it wouldn’t be a sound decision to assert that patents are ment to do anything. Unfortunately the answer seems to be more muddied than that and in fact we have to look at the context they are being used in the current timeframe. For now, as far as I can see it, the “purpose” of patents is a a method to generate proitected revenue streams and any contribution to the greater public good is definately not being emphasized (in recent history anyway, but who knows what changes in administration, technology, and public perception will bring).
practicality in dark times
Until this storm blows over and patents start to serve the small independent developer again I think patents are something that are not accessible to me, they are only a threat and impediment, not enabling. The main reason for this is financial, I simply can’t afford to file patents on every idea I have, and would not wish to anyway.
My standards for what is patentable are far far above the standards used by others today.
I’m not top on the smarts, but I am an original and creative thinker who has had several good and definitely patentable ideas. I split them into two camps. Those that are truly useful to others which I take an altrusistic stance on and simply publish. I see it like this, by publishing I am not preventing myself from capitalising on the idea
and I have a big headstart anyway. I try to hit things that will make it into archive.org and remain part of the public record, so that, hopefully, if anybody every tries to patent them they will be dug up as properly dated prior art. In that way I am using publication as an alternative to patents to achieve the second objective. When I want to “protect” an idea, I just use secrecy and shut the hell up about it, even if that means holding back critical source code in an otherwise open project. Obfuscation is fairly pointless imho, so I just try to make sure I hold onto the code tightly and secure the server properly.
give me hug baby
Hey AngryDude,
I think this might be love,
Will you marry me?
Re: give me hug baby
Forget the AngryDude,
Save those hugs for the merely Grumpy.
GOM
{/hugs GOM} (in a manly way)
you cheating whore!
and all this time I though misanthropic humanist was my special lovey snuggle muffin. hell with that then.
on the subject of patents-
If a patent is for an actual invention (something mechanical/physical that provides a certain function) I’m all for it.
If a patent is for a process (if you do A then B then C you’ll get D) I think that’s a load of crap.
If a patent is for a program (this program parses data through specific code and returns results) well then that’s just language and you can’t patent language. you could copyright it, which I think is ok, afterall, you don’t want someone blatantly stealing your code, but a patent is farkin’ ridiculous.
patents are over used, overly broad, and abused by people/institutions to the detriment of others. It’s not only about protecting IP, it’s about generating revenue, and that’s just BS.
back in your wigwam matey
Hey Chief Crazy Misanthrope, sorry to piss on your totem pole but I’m bloody English 🙂
We stole this place from some blue skinned people with little pixie ears.
btw, I’ll put $10 on red
🙂