sorry, this is not very insightful or accurate as someone who actually practices in this field can tell you
you would no more file a patent in the UK than plant vegetables in sand on the beach - its extremely expensive, and doesn't result in very much for the effort. The judicial system there costs many multiples of ours to enforce, and, guess what, they have "loser pays" which means most small companies are dissuaded from ever enforcing their rights
if anything the UK experience proves once and for all that the "loser pays" suggestion for the US would do nothing more than make patents even less accessible to small companies - you know, like Whatsapp which just saw Apple "borrow" a bunch of features with impunity because they have zero protection from the rest of the world continuing to steal their ideas
it starts from the premise that the "denominator" (3400) is the number of patent cases; it is NOT
the number of ACTUAL decisions where fees were requested is a fraction of that figure, so dividing actual favorable opinions (208) by the number of cases instead of number of actual fee requests (unknown) is just plain irresponsible if not fraud
the folks who "want reform" are defendants who argue that they've been mistreated, and they've been publishing fake numbers suggesting results like "we only got 6 out of 997 decisions in our favor"
The 997 number is bogus as I suggested some time back; that's number of cases, not number of fee decisions; but that real fact takes a back seat to the nice hyperbolic "6 out of 997" headline
and now of course it turns out the numerator of that ratio is wrong too
if serial infringers want "fee shifting" to alter behavior, they should let contingency fee plaintiffs collect back their 40% they paid to their attorneys to bring the lawsuit
but that never happens either, so the argument is again just an illusory premise that purports to be "fair" to both sides
so what you're telling me is that the 114 represents both defendants AND plaintiffs, which is kind of hilarious given the squawking from accused infringers that they are the only ones being victimized
the truth is, the term "exceptional" means just that; MENSA says "exceptional" is 2%
so if you use the term in its normal sense, 21 out of 135 denials is hardly... "exceptional"
also, the fact that there are 997 cases doesn't mean there were 997 requests for attorneys fees; in many cases defendant knows there is no chance of getting, doesn't file
until they confirm 976 "denials" of fees, I would not be so quick to accept their data - it could be 200 cases, in which case finding 10% "exceptional" is consistent with the useage of that term in ordinary parlance
Its also "mathematically impossible" to avoid all natural catastrophes and business disputes - that's why there's a thing called INSURANCE. But I have long argued that there should be a national "registry" where SW vendors should POST product information (literature, brochures, etc.) that could be vetted by patent owners. If no claim was made against a product within 2 years of such registration, then the patent owner would forever forfeit damages or injunction against said product. That would eliminate uncertainty for the product vendor and provide them design peace for the future.
I am the inventor and the person that Netflix tries to malign in their papers. If you want to see the whole story and then make your own judgement, please see my post at:
John
sorry, this is not very insightful or accurate as someone who actually practices in this field can tell you
you would no more file a patent in the UK than plant vegetables in sand on the beach - its extremely expensive, and doesn't result in very much for the effort. The judicial system there costs many multiples of ours to enforce, and, guess what, they have "loser pays" which means most small companies are dissuaded from ever enforcing their rights
if anything the UK experience proves once and for all that the "loser pays" suggestion for the US would do nothing more than make patents even less accessible to small companies - you know, like Whatsapp which just saw Apple "borrow" a bunch of features with impunity because they have zero protection from the rest of the world continuing to steal their ideas
Re:
this "study" uses the same flawed methodology
it starts from the premise that the "denominator" (3400) is the number of patent cases; it is NOT
the number of ACTUAL decisions where fees were requested is a fraction of that figure, so dividing actual favorable opinions (208) by the number of cases instead of number of actual fee requests (unknown) is just plain irresponsible if not fraud
Re:
the folks who "want reform" are defendants who argue that they've been mistreated, and they've been publishing fake numbers suggesting results like "we only got 6 out of 997 decisions in our favor"
The 997 number is bogus as I suggested some time back; that's number of cases, not number of fee decisions; but that real fact takes a back seat to the nice hyperbolic "6 out of 997" headline
and now of course it turns out the numerator of that ratio is wrong too
if serial infringers want "fee shifting" to alter behavior, they should let contingency fee plaintiffs collect back their 40% they paid to their attorneys to bring the lawsuit
but that never happens either, so the argument is again just an illusory premise that purports to be "fair" to both sides
Re: Fee awards
so what you're telling me is that the 114 represents both defendants AND plaintiffs, which is kind of hilarious given the squawking from accused infringers that they are the only ones being victimized
the truth is, the term "exceptional" means just that; MENSA says "exceptional" is 2%
so if you use the term in its normal sense, 21 out of 135 denials is hardly... "exceptional"
The geniuses at Lex Machina are off quite a bit:
https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/7047157b-4bdc-0d48-bdfd-5cf37351b5d2
21 cases, not 6
also, the fact that there are 997 cases doesn't mean there were 997 requests for attorneys fees; in many cases defendant knows there is no chance of getting, doesn't file
until they confirm 976 "denials" of fees, I would not be so quick to accept their data - it could be 200 cases, in which case finding 10% "exceptional" is consistent with the useage of that term in ordinary parlance
Methinks you SEVERELY misunderestimate the caliber and horsepower he is bringing to the table here:
http://www.kayescholer.com/professionals/trotter_rhonda
this is not some random rookie who doesn't know what she is doing - these folks play for keeps
Its also "mathematically impossible" to avoid all natural catastrophes and business disputes - that's why there's a thing called INSURANCE. But I have long argued that there should be a national "registry" where SW vendors should POST product information (literature, brochures, etc.) that could be vetted by patent owners. If no claim was made against a product within 2 years of such registration, then the patent owner would forever forfeit damages or injunction against said product. That would eliminate uncertainty for the product vendor and provide them design peace for the future.
Netflix nonsense
I am the inventor and the person that Netflix tries to malign in their papers. If you want to see the whole story and then make your own judgement, please see my post at:
http://nicdagreek.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/setting-the-record-straight.html
After you read what happened I think you have a different opinion about the merits of their request here.