next »

[isthisthingon]

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-microsoft-i4i-patent.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2011-03-22

Indeed, i4i, which won a $290 million patent judgment against Microsoft, has now accrued 22 amicus briefs in its corner, which represent more than 100 companies, organizations and individuals, including the U.S. government, individuals from the military, and venture capitalists. Compare that to Microsoft's 20 amicus briefs, which represent about 60 companies and individuals, including Google, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Red Hat, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 37 law and economics professors.

Those wanting software patent reform claim the USPTO frequently issues so-called "bad" patents for software, meaning patents for software "business processes" that don't meet the statutory standard for a patent. Because a software patent can cover a wide variety of how the business process is implemented, discovering all the appropriate existing patents when applying for new ones (known as "prior art") is difficult, expensive and inconclusive.

 

Microsoft and its supporters are arguing that the "clear and convincing" standard inordinately raises the burden of proof to invalidate a "bad" patent. They are advocating a standard known as a "preponderance of the evidence" which could ask the jury to consider more heavily evidence of prior art that the USPTO did not consider when granting the original patent.

"This case can be summed up in one word -- balance. The current approach taken by the Court of Appeals improperly tilts the scales to reward invalid patents. That approach needs to be corrected in favor of a system that ensures the process for obtaining and defending patents is clear, reasonable and doesn't unduly burden the system or innovation. When a patent issues, despite the fact that the Patent Office never had an opportunity to review the relevant prior technology, it enables the holders of those dubious patents to attack innovative companies with costly lawsuits. We believe a better balance will benefit all patent holders and innovators."

From the red corner...

i4i's supporters say if that standard is not upheld, it lowers the burden of proof to invalidate a "good" patent. i4i obtained a big feather in its cap when the federal government officially came down in favor of the i4i argument. The amicus brief from the U.S. solicitor general says that the USPTO can be trusted to be the expert, over a jury:
"The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate      and to disclose their inventions to the public."

And the blue corner rebuttal...

"By making questionable patents hard to invalidate, the clear-and-convincing standard creates an artificial incentive to apply for patents. It induces more applications and more patents, especially weak, marginal, and invalid patents."

Well fancy that, I'm squarely with Apple on this one 

[perkiset]

I was confused at first during the article - it was a bit wordy to get to the meat, but I get it and agree.

Just the other day a "Cayman Islands Holding Company" filed suit against a collective 40 companies (Apple, Nokia, Motorola you name it) that they had infringed on 5 patents regarding cameras integrated with phones. Hmmm. They specifically call out the iPhone (currently the wealthiest of the collection), however the details of the complaint fall squarely across virtually any phone that has a camera in it. I'm wondering why the, um, inventors that all seem to work at this no-named Caymans group waited till now to file? Even after years and hundreds if not thousands of different phones with cameras have hit the market? 

Actually I think that complaint, as well as what you've listed ITTO is excellent because they've really got to drag patent law out of the legal nooks and crannies and into daylight. It's just ridiculously beyond the pale and needs to be refreshed. There seems to be a new earthshaking suit filed every stinkin' day ... and we're paying for it both in license fees AND tax dollars. They've got to find a way to throw out the bath water without the baby in it.

[isthisthingon]

Totally.  And just the fact that Apple, Microsoft and Google are on the same of any team, should cause people to stop and think 

[perkiset]

 

However even that really doesn't mean much anymore, because it seems that every other day they team up into different groups and sue each other. It's like the dodgeball team pick from hell. There has GOT TO BE an understanding of this stuff that is beyond me (I mean at the super-corporate level, the Gates/Jobs/Schmidt kind of level), because I have such a hard time thinking how, today, you can be mortal enemies with another corp and tomorrow you're teamed together against someone else.

It's as mind numbing as politics.

[nop_90]

we're paying for it both in license fees AND tax dollars.

Yep, every time they fight this BS in the court, who is paying for the court,judges etc.

Because I have such a hard time thinking how, today, you can be mortal enemies with another corp and tomorrow you're teamed together against someone else.

It's as mind numbing as politics.

First statement is correct.
I am not sure what you mean by mind numbing. But if you are comparing the first statement to politics you are correct.
If you are thinking that it is a shell game, where "Red I win, Blue you lose", then you have it pretty much summed up.
What is the difference between Obama and GWB except Obamba is black ? Think about it.

Patents, like most laws do not benefit the small business, they support big business.
And like most laws they are a method to limit competition. Think about it.
And the best way to screw over small companies is patent laws. Stacker vs MS is a classic example. Stacker was in the right, they still lost.

Some small company figures out a new way to do something better or cheaper. Best way to eliminate the competition is patent law.
As for you need "patent law", "digital rights" to encourage creativity. If you believe that crap well, propaganda has worked well.
Using that theory, there should have been no innovation prior to 1800.

Anyway it took people in India like 150+ years to figure out the British where fuking them over.
So hmmmm, Americans still have another 75 years to go

[perkiset]

Mind numbing as politics == Stupid to the point of migraine.

[Jeremiah]

Thanks for sharing information.
Some facts are right ans some are wrong. In software world there are enter new competitor and competition is very tuff. Now market is very down and all the organization face bad situation.