[IP] more on Patent reform in Congress
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
Date: May 16, 2005 1:00:24 PM EDT
To: Rob Raisch <info@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Patent reform in Congress
Hi, Rob.
1. I invent something useful,
2. I patent it (which gives me the right to exploit my invention for
a period of time), and
3. I then sell that right to someone else because for whatever reason
I am unable to commercialize it myself.
So, the new patent-holder finds an infringer and decides to protect
their newly purchased property rights? And that's a "troll"?
Yes, for two reasons.
The practical reason is that the quality of issued patents,
particularly in computing but also in general, is not very good. A
lot of these patents egregiously fail to meet the standard of
originality and non-obvousness, but even the simplest patent
litigation is very expensive, six figures and up. So the trolls set
the license price low enough that it's cheaper to pay than to sue and
win. Basically, it's a shakedown.
The theoretical reason is that the patent system is based on a bargain
between the inventors and the American people, explicitly included in
the Consitution "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
We give the inventor a 17 year monopoly on an invention, in return for
which he discloses it rather than keeping it a trade secret, and we
all get to use it after the 17 years are up. (Copyrights are based on
a similar bargain, something that Disney and the RIAA really, really
hope we forget.) It is hard for me to see how patent shakedowns meet
the purpose for which patents exist. They don't reward the inventor,
and are not except via the most tortuous logic likely to encourage
future inventions or patent disclosures.
R's,
John
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/