"Hahahah. That's simply untrue. The customer exception is pretty clearly defined and what you describe simple would not be enabled under the program."
That's what you say. Someone with a bit more knowledge said otherwise in testimony before Congress.
"Former USPTO Director David Kappos emphasized this fact when testifying before the House Committee on the Judiciary:
[A]s currently written the stay provision permits all parties in the product channel downstream of the first component part maker to escape infringement liability, including large commercial actors such as manufacturers combining procured components into value-added completed devices, as well as assemblers, and others not operating in the roles of ?mere retailers? or ?mere end users?, and certainly not operating in the roles of ?mom and pop shops?. This unnecessarily devalues intellectual property and thus innovation by artificially limiting or even eliminating legitimate patentees? ability to protect their innovations. It also may leave an American innovator with no infringer at all to pursue where infringing manufacturers are located outside the reach of the US courts, such as overseas, or lack adequate assets to answer for infringement."
The abusive litigation problem is a smokescreen for an effort by some very big companies (Google, Samsung, and others) to weaken the patent system. Their main goal is to weaken property rights, not to end abusive practices. Take fee shifting for example. If that passes, which startup will be able to prevent a big company from completely ripping off its technology? Or the customer exception. Samsung will point to Foxconn, Foxconn will point to TSMC, TSMC will point to ten different companies, and the innovator will have no one to go after. It will be open season on American innovation.
The big companies want to keep shipping jobs to Asia and not have to worry about designing around innovators. So before you mindlessly repeat inanities, ask yourself this: what does the measure do to a start-up's ability to protect its innovation? You'll see that some of the proposed measures are indeed about stopping litigation abuse (e.g. pleading and demand letter reforms), while others are about gutting the system for small players (e.g. fee shifting, customer exception).
"So 50 percent of all advancement requires a patent?"
Were you ever involved in a decision whether to file a patent application? Most advances are kept as trade secrets. It costs $10k or more to file an application, and $20k or more to get a patent. Companies are selective about what they apply for (ever heard of a patent committee?), and still were getting only ~35% of their applications approved a year ago (now it looks like the allowance rate is heading up toward the 50% range). Most people don't blow $20k without doing some homework in advance.
What you have is a few bad patents getting a ton of press, and the countless good applications that are stuck in the PTO getting no press at all. Perhaps we should also abolish all cars since some are defective. And you don't read about the company or technology that never makes it because investors won't invest in technology that's too easy to rip off.
As you paint the patent system with broad brush strokes, pause to ask yourself this: what would happen without it?
The answer is simple: people will rely on trade secrets. This might work in some fields, but not in others. Bloom Energy came out of stealth mode today, and, without having looked at their patent applications, I'm willing to bet the best info on their technology can be found there. Is that good or not?
The patent system has some problems, which need to be fixed, but I see too many people automatically regurgitating cliches without thinking. The patent allowance rate went from ~65% in 2005 to ~40% today. Why is that? Is it really that easy to get a patent? There's really a lot of ignorance in this debate.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SV.
Let's get rid of...
Litigation over property costs a ton of money. Let's get rid of property.
Litigation over personal injury claims costs a ton of money. Let's get rid of personal injury claims.
Litigation over the ADA costs a ton of money. Let's get rid of the ADA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls are a smokescreen
One final point:
"Hahahah. That's simply untrue. The customer exception is pretty clearly defined and what you describe simple would not be enabled under the program."
That's what you say. Someone with a bit more knowledge said otherwise in testimony before Congress.
"Former USPTO Director David Kappos emphasized this fact when testifying before the House Committee on the Judiciary:
[A]s currently written the stay provision permits all parties in the product channel downstream of the first component part maker to escape infringement liability, including large commercial actors such as manufacturers combining procured components into value-added completed devices, as well as assemblers, and others not operating in the roles of ?mere retailers? or ?mere end users?, and certainly not operating in the roles of ?mom and pop shops?. This unnecessarily devalues intellectual property and thus innovation by artificially limiting or even eliminating legitimate patentees? ability to protect their innovations. It also may leave an American innovator with no infringer at all to pursue where infringing manufacturers are located outside the reach of the US courts, such as overseas, or lack adequate assets to answer for infringement."
Trolls are a smokescreen
The abusive litigation problem is a smokescreen for an effort by some very big companies (Google, Samsung, and others) to weaken the patent system. Their main goal is to weaken property rights, not to end abusive practices. Take fee shifting for example. If that passes, which startup will be able to prevent a big company from completely ripping off its technology? Or the customer exception. Samsung will point to Foxconn, Foxconn will point to TSMC, TSMC will point to ten different companies, and the innovator will have no one to go after. It will be open season on American innovation.
The big companies want to keep shipping jobs to Asia and not have to worry about designing around innovators. So before you mindlessly repeat inanities, ask yourself this: what does the measure do to a start-up's ability to protect its innovation? You'll see that some of the proposed measures are indeed about stopping litigation abuse (e.g. pleading and demand letter reforms), while others are about gutting the system for small players (e.g. fee shifting, customer exception).
Re: Re: Some facts
"So 50 percent of all advancement requires a patent?"
Were you ever involved in a decision whether to file a patent application? Most advances are kept as trade secrets. It costs $10k or more to file an application, and $20k or more to get a patent. Companies are selective about what they apply for (ever heard of a patent committee?), and still were getting only ~35% of their applications approved a year ago (now it looks like the allowance rate is heading up toward the 50% range). Most people don't blow $20k without doing some homework in advance.
What you have is a few bad patents getting a ton of press, and the countless good applications that are stuck in the PTO getting no press at all. Perhaps we should also abolish all cars since some are defective. And you don't read about the company or technology that never makes it because investors won't invest in technology that's too easy to rip off.
I'd like some
"As I alluded to in another post, they don't even seem to be considering the option of just rejecting more applications."
I'd like some of what you're smoking. Life is good when pesky facts don't get in the way.
don't kill the goose
As you paint the patent system with broad brush strokes, pause to ask yourself this: what would happen without it?
The answer is simple: people will rely on trade secrets. This might work in some fields, but not in others. Bloom Energy came out of stealth mode today, and, without having looked at their patent applications, I'm willing to bet the best info on their technology can be found there. Is that good or not?
The patent system has some problems, which need to be fixed, but I see too many people automatically regurgitating cliches without thinking. The patent allowance rate went from ~65% in 2005 to ~40% today. Why is that? Is it really that easy to get a patent? There's really a lot of ignorance in this debate.