|
There are several point related to patents I feel the need to make. First off - Patent law, just like copyright law was written well before our lawmakers knew of the various technology that is available today. There are many questions that technology creates that are not specifically addressed in Patent law.
Patent law indicates that a patent will be granted on an idea if there is no prior art and the idea is not obvious to a skilled practitioner. Now, what happens if the person at the patent office is not familiar with the technology? They often ASSUME there is no prior art and there is no way for them to know if the idea is obvious or not. So what has been happening is that patents have been granted for items that would seem obvious to several of us - the ability to receive email wirelessly, for example. (Why is it combining two existing ideas - Email and Wireless internet access- a "new" idea?)
Once a patent office grants a patent it is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming to prove that the idea was either prior art or obvious. One can appeal and provide proof of such to the patent office, but in the mean time the patent holder can attempt to enforce it's rights, which is what is happening in the case being discussed.
In the case in question, the Patent Office has admitted that they made a mistake and the patent should not have been issued. However the law allows the patent holder to appeal that decision, which is what NTP is doing. The patent office has further announced that it is VERY unlikely that they will uphold NTP's appeal. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that the fact that the Patent Office has already said the patents in question are invalid AND that they said it was very unliekly that they would overturn that ruling should at least cause the legal system to hold off on effectively killing a company over an invalid patent. It should also be noted that NTP requested an extension to present it's appeal to the patent office- most likely to delay the office's final decision to make it occur after the court date on 2/1.
You can all say all you want about how Patents are good because they protect people's ideas, but the idea behind patent law is promote innovation. The goverenment doesn't care about protecting your idea, they just want to encourage people to create new "stuff". IMO, If you have an idea, but never plan on using that idea to create a product you should not be allowed to prevent others from creating products that may seem to use the same idea - particularly if you never heard or new of the original idea that was never executed.
NTP has never created any product. They are a very small organization that's only purpose is to review new products to see if there MAY have been some sort of prior idea some had for the same product. If so they they purchase the patent from the original holder, who most likely never intended to create anything anyway (for pennies on the dollar I might add). Then they turn around and sue the company that actually produced the product. It is beyond me why anyone would think this is a "good" thing, as it is NOT the intent of patent law to stifle innovation, which is surely what is happening as a result of patent hoarders such as NTP. Many of these patents should never have been granted since they are obvious, however, often companies settle as they have shareholders to answer to, and being involved in a long, costly legal battle over the validity of a product often is very brutal on stock price.
|