06-05-2004, 06:00 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
'Patent Trolls' & Technological Trickery
The BBC has an interesting article up about possible reforms to the US Patent system:
"Mad cap patents ranging from protecting a method of painting by dipping a baby's bottom into paint or a system for keeping track of people queuing for the bathroom may soon be a thing of the past if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has its way. Such patents, while humorous, clearly show both how broken the American patent system and how lax standards are hurting innovation when it comes to business, the Commission says. "The intellectual property system was designed to create incentives for people to innovate by giving them, for want of a better word, a monopoly on their ideas for a certain period of time," FTC commissioner Mozelle Thompson told BBC News Online. "But we have seen instances where companies use that monopoly in an anti-competitive way, sometimes to prevent other products from getting to market, to prevent people from sharing ideas and to prevent the kind of innovation that the patent system is really trying to spur on.""
No, patents being used to stifle innovation? 8O Really? Get outahere! :wink: It's good to see that the system is being reformed, as apparently over half of all US patents should have not been awarded in the fist place.
"An added problem is the growth of so called 'patent trolls' who can be likened to modern day highway robbers cashing in on the problem. These are lawyers and investors who buy cheaply or assume control over paper patents, mistakenly granted largely to failed companies, explains David Simon, computer firm Intel's chief patent counsel. The trolls can use these patents to threaten to shut down the entire computing industry with a court order injunction, no matter how minor the feature that has been patented is. Mr Simon cites one case where a patent troll claimed a patent they had bought for about $50,000 was infringed by all of Intel's microprocessors from the Pentium II onwards and that they were seeking $7 billion in damages. In the end, the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."
Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-05-2004, 11:13 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 734
|
|
Re: 'Patent Trolls' & Technological Trickery
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."[/i]
Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.
|
Agreed. Courts have bettert things to do then entertain BS claims. They should shoot bottomfeeders like that in the face to prvent this
|
| |
|
|
|
06-06-2004, 05:16 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Re: 'Patent Trolls' & Technological Trickery
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bjornkeizers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."[/i]
Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.
|
Agreed. Courts have bettert things to do then entertain BS claims. They should shoot bottomfeeders like that in the face to prvent this |
That's why I'm in favor of a modified "loser pays" system. Whoever loses the lawsuit should have to pay court costs. They should also have to pay the winning side's attorney fees, with a cap determined by how much their attorney fees are (or would have been, in the case of contingency suits). That limit prevents one side from throwing in a multi-million dollar legal team just to scare off people from suing because of the huge attorney bills they'd face if they lost.
In the Intel case, the losers would have to foot at least part of Intel's $3 million legal fees.
Steve
|
| |
|
|
|
06-06-2004, 10:24 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 734
|
|
I'm all for patents; as long as they're specific ones. Not the kind of patents we recently discussed (the one about PPC's storing credit card info and such) It's clear the lawyers are only after money with those; not protecting intellectual rights.
IMO, these people are the lowest form of life. At least an actual shark makes an honest living. You don't see them screwing each other over silly patents... These people are only doing it to get rich off someone else's hard work - and they're clogging up the courts as a result, which costs *ME* money. I can't understands why courts would even entertain such silly claims like that..
I'm all for loser pays!
|
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 01:12 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,097
|
|
As long as the algorithm for how much the user pays is fair, I'd be all for looser pays, although about that part "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."
I'd go further to say, that looser pays if they are the plaintiff
__________________
Please see www.grlt.com "Tech with a twist of lime!"
The Midlands Hybrid Club MidlandsHybrid.com
Current: Kacey's Wing, T-mo Wing Past: GCM_T, T-Mobile MDA |
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 03:09 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Loser Pays
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kacey Green
As long as the algorithm for how much the user pays is fair, I'd be all for looser pays, although about that part "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."
|
The free attorney is for criminal cases, not civil, so the point is not applicable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kacey Green
I'd go further to say, that looser pays if they are the plaintiff
|
No, if the defendent loses, a jury (or judge) obviously felt they did something wrong, so the suit was justified. The plantiff should therefore be entitled to reimbursement for the necessity of suing.
Steve
P.S. The word is loser; looser is an adjective meaning "more loose". I'm seeing this more and more on the Internet lately, and it's become a pet peeve of mine (one of the many :-D).
|
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 03:35 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,097
|
|
my point was if the loser was being pursued by a big corp it could be a bad thing
this could be useful in all court cases everywhere to help with frivolous lawsuits
Edit, it wouldn't matter who was going after who if the algorithm of who pays what is good, and I'm sure all the lawyers would love this plan, they still get paid.
__________________
Please see www.grlt.com "Tech with a twist of lime!"
The Midlands Hybrid Club MidlandsHybrid.com
Current: Kacey's Wing, T-mo Wing Past: GCM_T, T-Mobile MDA |
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 05:20 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Lawyers Views
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kacey Green
Edit, it wouldn't matter who was going after who if the algorithm of who pays what is good, and I'm sure all the lawyers would love this plan, they still get paid.
|
Actually, I suspect lawyers would hate it. It's meant to discourage lawsuits by making people think twice about suing.
Steve
|
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 09:19 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 734
|
|
Yeah, right now every schmuck with a shark in a suit and a fifteen year old patent can sue big businesses. While the claims are 9 times out of 10 pure grade-A bull****, it's just easier and cheaper to pay a settlement then litigate... which could very well run into the millions of dollars. And lawyers know this.
***Post edited by moderator SJC for language.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-07-2004, 07:38 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,097
|
|
we'll have to suggest this to the powers that be 
__________________
Please see www.grlt.com "Tech with a twist of lime!"
The Midlands Hybrid Club MidlandsHybrid.com
Current: Kacey's Wing, T-mo Wing Past: GCM_T, T-Mobile MDA |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
