Guest post by James Bessen, Boston University School of Law and Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard, and Michael J. Meurer, Boston University School of Law
As Congress considers the SHIELD Act, it is helpful to review some of the empirical evidence on the economics Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs). Following up on Colleen Chien’s recent post (Patent Trolls by the Numbers), this post looks briefly at data on the 10 publicly listed firms that were predominantly in the patent assertion business during the period from 2005 to 2010 (Acacia, Asure, Interdigital, Mosaid, Network-1, OPTi, Rambus, Tessera, Virnetx, and Wi-Lan). These companies accounted for about one sixth of all PAE lawsuits filed during this period. Although these companies might not represent the entire universe of PAEs, the greater amount of available financial information helps paint a rich picture of their business. We explored three questions:
1. How much licensing revenue do PAEs get per company sued?
We matched these patent trolls to the lawsuits filed listed in Patent Freedom’s database of patent trolls (see our paper The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls for details on this database and the matching). During the period from 2005 through 2010, licensing revenues totaled nearly $6 billion. The mean licensing revenue per defendant comes to $3.8 million in 2010 dollars. This figure includes licensing revenues from non-litigated patent assertions. But it understates the magnitude of licensing revenues per suit because it does not account for accruals — much of the revenue from lawsuits filed in 2010 was not collected in 2010 (and there were many more lawsuits in 2010 than in earlier years). Overall, this figure corresponds rather well with survey-based estimates in our paper The Direct Costs of NPE Disputes.
2. How does revenue vary with PAE business model?
We identified three different types of business models: “middlemen” who acquire or license patents from third party inventors (e.g., Acacia), “R&D-based” who conduct R&D and file their own patents (e.g., Rambus), and “salvage” where an operating company becomes a PAE using patents it developed for its own business (e.g., Asure / Forgent). The R&D-based PAEs file fewer lawsuits, but their licensing revenues are much greater. The R&D-based PAEs account for only 6% of the lawsuits, but 83% of the revenues, earning $54 million per defendant. The “middlemen” file 80% of the lawsuits, but earn only $0.7 million per defendant. These wide disparities correspond to other evidence about the high heterogeneity of PAEs and licensing outcomes.
3. How much of the licensing revenue flows to inventors?
Using the firm’s 10-K reports, we estimated the flows of funds to third party inventors as royalties and as patent acquisitions, as well as the flows to PAE’s own R&D departments including capitalized development costs when the PAE exited an operating business. Of the total licensing revenues earned, only 7% flowed to third party inventors. If we look at just the “middlemen” PAEs, 31% of the licensing revenues flow to third party inventors. If we include own R&D in the whole sample of PAEs, total flows to inventors of all types come to 26% of licensing revenues. These numbers suggest that on the whole, not much of the revenue received by publicly listed PAEs ends up supporting independent inventors. They also suggest that most of the licensing revenues are consumed as transaction cost, even for the “middlemen” PAEs.
James Bessen is a former software innovator and an economist studying innovation; Michael J. Meurer is an economist and law professor. Bessen and Meurer wrote Patent Failure, an economic analysis of the performance of the US patent system in 2008 (Princeton University Press).
Fact v. Spin
I respect the quality of Patently-O. Sorry for trying to be diplomatic. In the end, my point was that these two academics have admitted to being paid “some support” from the Coalition for Patent Fairness for their anti-NPE “research.” Just pointing out the facts to some commentors who would feign shock that anyone would suggest there’s gambling going on in Casablanca. With respect to their work, it’s been discredited but that hasnt stopped IT from shoveling it.
I am seeing a rather sickening possibility with deflozzios bill the intent is to stop large scale marketable concievers specifically me from starting up from indegency status more than the ones already representing the more affluent patrollers already having monitizing sucess. This causes incentive shutdown in the brightest concievers. My plan to require 33% minium for concievers means sufficient money to start up and become practicing entities. The struggling startups their talking about should be paying into a court supervised funds to ensure their incentive to continue is not destroyed also unless there in competition with the concievers start up then they should have been shutdown by uspto before patent issue and on startup.
The blog is posted in the public domaine so individules cival rights to freedom of speach and the right of the public to hear the other side of the story are in effect thats the ruling of the high federal me.
Now now now, staff,
This is his blog, after all and he can do what he pleases.
C’est la vie.
Mr. Crouch:
If you were truly impartial, you would post our comments. It doesn’t matter as we mirror them across the web so you are exposed. You are no different from the invention thieves you quote and appear to be in league with them. Do you have any response, or will you continue to ‘filter’ true informed and impartial debate out?
PIAUSA
Good points NWPA.
And in the name of truth and fairness, I hear the good professors are now eagerly at work on their next:
Post: Patent Pirates in Public
and
Paper: The Private and Social Costs of Patent Pirates
Respectfully, Dennis; is this anti-patent week at PatentlyO or what?
And wouldn’t it be fairer to all your readers to require that any guest posters using the pejorative “patent troll” state what they believe one is?
I see a “use” of power, but no “abuse” thereof.
These are all directly commercial entities, not grandma who was intimidated into buying a driveway sealing, or a variety store owner who has no choice other than to purchase protection.
anon: Although unnecessary, thanks for noting the “tastelessness” of Malcolm’s comment.
Malcolm: When you make “tasteless” comments like these, I know you’ve lost the argument and the debate has ended.
It’s news only because you have a habit of not listening.
LOL – I may be your only friend (other than NWPA).
BJA,
As chemistry major who got a B.A. degree from one of the finest small liberal arts schools in the country (Carleton College), be careful about viewing all liberal arts professors as simply “leftists.” Many are but there were some, including my political science professor, who were not. Also, my chemistry profs who were generally “liberal” from a political standpoint (I was not even in college) were more focused on teaching us the science rather than the politics, and I respect them for that.
Are you that desperate for attention? Why don’t you try a dating site? (Then again, maybe you already tried that.)
A guy with that many sockpuppets? It does raise some questions.
As well as 6, IANAE and MaxDrie who have been banned or threatened with banishment
LOL, that’s news to me.
Sorry Malcolm, no “baiting” allowed. I’ve fully responded to your points (1) and (2). That you don’t like my response is your problem, not mine. Out.
I’m not your friend.
I bet Sarah would agree with you too Michael. As well as 6, IANAE and MaxDrie who have been banned or threatened with banishment for playing too loose with the law.
…the company you keep…
OMG, I replied to myself, quick, call the doctor.
LOL
Repeating yourself is not very effective, given that your first post missed the point.
But hey, I will fight for your right to make a f001 of yourself, and if a decision goes against you, I will APPEAL EVERYTHING.
LOL (you are much too tightly wound, my friend).
If you want to read a heavely illegaly sensored website read IP watchdog if you want to know the truth and both sides of the story read patently o is more like it.
“Um, sure, I guess if you attach some importance to the ‘reply to self’ aspect…”
You’re a sad, lonely specimen. If you don’t get a response to one of your posts within 10 minutes you’re replying to yourself. Are you that desperate for attention? Why don’t you try a dating site? (Then again, maybe you already tried that.)
“Not sure what that would be…”
Lulz. Of course you don’t.
Another vacuous post.
Thanks Malcolm.
Classic – allude back to a tasteless post of your own in smearing the recently departed.
You are truly a work of something, Malcolm.
“It’s just sounds old school litigious, like Edison.”
LOL – Just like. Oops – Edison would be considered a troll under SHIELD.
Another Malcolm self-defeat.
The source of data used for “identifying.”
C’mon Malcolm, at least try.
“I’ve seen far more “disappointing” guest posts here.”
No one comes to mind… (that I think you would think of)
what the person does
LOL – like enforce them.
Still no “us.”
Right. Just you and your sockp-ppet.
kindly replace “us” with the intellectually-honest “me.”
Kindly provide us with an example of the “utter nonsense.” Atticus Finch would never smear a person then run away without explaining what he was talking about. What’s the problem? Maybe EG just popped a bolt like he did after the Prometheus decision gutted his Magic Patent Dreams.
BTW, why should property rights vary according to who owns them?
It’s not about “who” owns the property, at least not in the patent context. It’s more about what the person does with the property that affects their “rights”.
BTW, why should property rights vary according to who owns them?
Gosh, you are just wondering that now when your beloved patent “rights” are being challenged?
Classic.
Sorry, MM. Still no “us.”
You. Are. Alone.
Henceforth, kindly replace “us” with the intellectually-honest “me.”
It approaches everyone that engages in manufacturing in any field it does business and has patents.
So it’s really nothing like a PAE, then.
It’s just sounds old school litigious, like Edison.
the way they pursue litigation is the problem. They spend like crazy, and do things like continually keep your key executives and technical folks involved in depositions and productions like you cannot believe.
Uh … that’s what good litigation attorneys are paid to do. This is not at all unique to IBM.
Apple sues to protect its product business.
[IBM] approaches everyone that engages in manufacturing in any field it does business
If there’s a difference between these two statements, it doesn’t seem like a big one.
I would hope that most who pay attention to these issues and respect Patently-O for its product over the years would be disppaointed to see the site post this “guest post.”
LOL. I’ve seen far more “disappointing” guest posts here.
You want to read a blog that caters to your personal patent fantasies? Try IPWatchdog. It’s a whole other planet. And Gene isn’t biased at all. He’s all facts, baby, all the time.
“What is “non-scholarly” about the paper above?”
LOL – besides everything, you mean?
Tell me what is “non-scholarly” about this passage and why you find it “non-scholarly”:
We identified three different types of business models: “middlemen” who acquire or license patents from third party inventors (e.g., Acacia), “R&D-based” who conduct R&D and file their own patents (e.g., Rambus), and “salvage” where an operating company becomes a PAE using patents it developed for its own business (e.g., Asure / Forgent). The R&D-based PAEs file fewer lawsuits, but their licensing revenues are much greater. The R&D-based PAEs account for only 6% of the lawsuits, but 83% of the revenues, earning $54 million per defendant. The “middlemen” file 80% of the lawsuits, but earn only $0.7 million per defendant. These wide disparities correspond to other evidence about the high heterogeneity of PAEs and licensing outcomes.
Thanks.
bloggers who specialize in spin and misrepresentation is a clear error.
Have you spoken to Gene Quinn about your issues?
“BOO HOO HOOO HOOOHOOO!!!!!!! ”
Coming from the largest source of QQ, the irony is delicious.
“What is “non-scholarly” about the paper above?”
LOL – besides everything, you mean?
Why not check out MC’s comment below at 5:02 PM.
Maybe he too speaks English as a second language and all of a sudden needs to see a doctor…
And you rather missed the symmetry of my posts at 1:17 and 2:58…
Maybe you were too busy posturing.
LOL
Um, sure, I guess if you attach some importance to the “reply to self” aspect…
Not sure what that would be, but I am sure you can think of something odd and completely out of place.
Now the title I would really like to have is the APPEAL EVERYTHING (TM) title.
MM, as a result of antitrust settlements, IBM is required to license its patents. It will do so for specified royalty rates on individual patents, as a portfolio license with a defined field, and will accept a license back of your portfolio as consideration. With cross licenses, it demands a balancing payment.
It approaches everyone that engages in manufacturing in any field it does business and has patents. One cannot avoid IBM. The costs it imposes on market entrants with small portfolios to cross license can be relatively high, crippling in nature. In this way, the IBM cross license is a market barrier.
It approachs one in the same market space with the assumption that you need a license. It basis its royalty demands on various criteria, but mostly related to the size of their pile versus the size of your pile in the same field.
If you balk, only then will they actually give you notices of infringements. At times, the patents asserted are inconsequential, at best.
If you still balk, they will sue. But the way they pursue litigation is the problem. They spend like crazy, and do things like continually keep your key executives and technical folks involved in depositions and productions like you cannot believe. I was personally aware of litigation with a company we acquired who, because of the litigation, fell behind the market in producing new products and had to seek a savior. Expensive does not even come close.
The above is not the way a patent holder who, like Apple, is trying to prevent competition using techonology pioneered by the patent holder. Apple sues to protect its product business.
The above is not the way a patent licensing company operates. They look for infringement first.
IBM operates on the assumption that it owns the sandbox and you need to pay a price to play in it. If you do not pay, they will sue and make you rue the day that you didn't. Their approach is very similar to the way any mafia organization demands protection money.
I would hope that most who pay attention to these issues and respect Patently-O for its product over the years would be disppaointed to see the site post this “guest post.” Most know they are compensated for their “research.” Heck, they admitted it themselves. For example, in “THE PRIVATE AND SOCIAL COSTS OF PATENT TROLLS” published in 2011, Bessen and Muerer include the following note of appreciation: “Thanks to Colleen Chien, Dennis Crouch and Michael Risch for comments. Thanks to research assistance from Tim Layton, data from Patent Freedom and some support from the Coalition for Patent Fairness. A version of this working paper will be published in Regulation.” In addition to thanking this site’s moderator and others, they admit to “some support” from Cisco, Dell, Blackberry, Verizon, and other members of the CPF. What is “some support” and, if it was a financial payment, at what point does “some support” permit the readers of this site to question the authors’ independence? Thanks.
link to bu.edu
Ya stolen I filed 12 patents with 30 inventions worth 35 billion dollers and couldent find investors to hire patent preparers to complete the patents so they fell into default and there giving out patents on all my IP now. They need to make that 3 year due diligence provision into a assuming adaquate funding. Indegence should never be an excuse to comit fraud in order to enrichen the already rich its just another example of genuine heinious injustice in the system needing corection and compensation
The danger of academic papers – such as the one here above – is that they are purporting to be scholarly works
What is “non-scholarly” about the paper above?
For example, say you were a new hill staffer and wanted to get up to speed on the patent debates. You google search ‘ mercexchange v ebay amicus briefs’ – it points to this blog as a source of that information. When you click to this blog – you only get the ebay amicus briefs (we need weak patent rights) – and ZERO amicus briefs for Mercexchange (we need strong patent rights).
“BOO HOO HOOO HOOOHOOO!!!!!!! Dennis has a popular blog and it doesn’t express my viewpoint in the way that I want!!!!! STOP PICKING ON MERCEXCHANGE!!!!!!!”
Ned: If a big company uses its size and wealth and sheer ability to litigate you into a black hole rather than the merits of its patents to obtain licensing revenue, then I think that is wrong.
if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of IBM you understand what I am saying.
I really do not believe that Malcolm fully understands how IBM operates. They are not like Apple at all.
Ned, could you be a little more specific? You seem to be asserting (with inuendo) that IBM’s licensing arm has been going around for years threatening mass numbers of small businesses left and right with frivolous patent lawsuits involving patents that are unrelated to IBM’s products or business interests (other than the licensing/settlement fees). That’s what the PAE’s are doing.
Can you provide some evidence of this? If not, can you provide at least some instances where IBM went around asserting a bunch of j-nk patents unrelated to their own products against a substantial portion of an industry or a large number of joined defendants, including small businesses? This is what the PAE’s are doing.
“Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk.” Utter stuff and nonsense
I didn’t ask for you to repeat what you originally said, EG. Give us an example of the “utter nonsense.”
The title says it all
Really? The title sounds exactly like what patent t–b-ggers like you tell us every time a law or decision is passed that finds a patent invalid or ineligible.
There appears to be too much of a hurtle for filing a lawsuit which has hurt the small inventor
It’s pretty easy and not very expensive to file a lawsuit, actually. I’ll file one for you today. Let me see your patent.
we must lower the costs to file a lawsuit to help the small inventor.
Again, I’ll file it for you and I won’t charge you. We can split the difference after we win. Just let me see the patent. It’s not worth doing if your patent st-nks. Of course, if you just want to troll, that’s another story. You should sell it some entity that does nothing but troll. I would suggest hurrying up, in that case.
The lonely little anon is going to post something in reply to your post. And if you don’t post something in reply to his post with about 5-10 minutes, he’s going to post something in reply to himself.
He really wants that title!!
“anon said in reply to anon…”
That would be anon sequitur.
“NWPA said in reply to NWPA…”
and
“anon said in reply to anon…”
You two are battling mightily for the title of “most replies to self.” Good luck to both of you.
Shhh…
You know that doesn’t matter, 6. I expect you learned that in kindergarten.
What if the other side is due no respect?
“ps: APPEAL EVERYTHING(TM)”
or at least give that posture
Ive been advocating the end of cash payment to noninventors if they cant produce invention regularly they are not inventors the only way bank drafts should offer lump sum payments is where IP startup from more of the inventors inventions is occuring and only to fund those projects cash is dangerious and ive don everything to eliminate it so far. I just had many setbacks in bought off legislators new provisions in reform they eliminated previous invention clusters to prove inventorship very disgusting.We could have had perfection in the new legislation but the degree of pagan regression is astounding the listen for 25 years or more if the normal holds true.
“Really just a matter of whether or not I care enough to spend the time to write it.”
Maybe you could spend less time blathering here and more time preparing your complaint to the Stanford faculty senate.
“as much consideration as they would give one of those e-mails from an exiled Nigerian prince. ”
I don’t know about you, but those electronic letters addressed directly to me are intercepted and destroyed and I never see them.
ps: APPEAL EVERYTHING(TM)
We’ll see. Really just a matter of whether or not I care enough to spend the time to write it. It appears there isn’t going to be any pay out from you.
Not really. You’re posturing and I’m calling you on your b–llsh-t. You and I both know that the faculty senate will give your complaint about as much consideration as they would give one of those e-mails from an exiled Nigerian prince. But if you want to consider this a call of your bluff, please do go ahead with your complaint(s) so we can all have a laugh.
Them there are betting words.
No you’re not.
Inviting, if you've ever been on the receiving end of IBM you understand what I am saying.
Regarding a lawyer with a patent, it is alleged that some offer licenses at a royalty rate substantially less than the cost of litigation. If there's a pattern of this, then I would agree that what the lawyers doing is using the high costs of litigation rather than the merits of the patent in order to enrich himself.
All this argues is that we need to look at reducing the cost of patent litigation. Inter partes review is one such effort.
Yeah, I am. I used to be a member of the faculty senate of a university.
“…and I am serious when I say that I may start filing complaints with the faculty senates of the universities.”
No you’re not.
I believe the thing with Rambus is their questionable involvement in certain Standard Setting Organizations and patents that just happen to read on the specs produced by said SSOs.
Joe
The $1500 level frauds come to me and get up in my face and some times threaten violence and rarely purpertrate it to obtain the conception under duress. The industrial goons pay the blood money with a prosecution understanding that creates the $1500 hitman in case the frauds are discovered like here for example then swarms start forming from the woodwork with no police protection evident with neglegent cops
And, I would add this: I am really just socked and appalled that I even have to argue this. It would seem to me that any paper that is published in a law journal should have to uphold the highest standards of scholarship. I should feel safe reading the article that this is time well spent. Maybe an opinion but due respect given to the other side and no omissions or factual misrepresentations.
I am really —socked and appalled—that this is even an issue with a journal like Stanford Law Review and I am serious when I say that I may start filing complaints with the faculty senates of the universities.
And, I would point out in response to Dennis that the cost to me the reader is that I cannot trust a writing as being scholarly and so I don’t read it because I don’t want to take the enormous amount of time it takes to sort out fact from fiction from omission.
I agree 100%!! And, I think that the law journals should police themselves. I wonder if the science professors are aware of this problem with their law school.
The investors just want to horse trade them up to astronomical profits and leave the true conciever pennyless there should be a provision that 15%is retained for a future profit partnership by the end user after sales reach high levels where 10 million yearly profits are exceeded and a prorated share when less than that down to 0% in the companies infancy thats the way I do it. The group of top marketable inventions that I produce is worth it in business sucess odds and aditional inventions free in case of unsucess or low sucess makes a superior investment
MM–
Once again, you can whine all you want–the real problem is invalid or overly-broadly-construed claims.
Every patentee has met their burden of disclosure, which is what the public gets in the quid pro quo. In return they are currently given the right to exclude–and whether, and how, they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
You are troubled by the fact that the managers in the government aren’t doing a good job at extracting value in the quid pro quo because, especially in the so-called “software arts”, they aren’t adding to the body of human knowledge that already exists in society, in particular among infringers–that is, in granting patent rights, the PTO is getting nothing in return for society that society didn’t already have.
Society, as personified by infringers, therefore gets all the burden (exposure to liability), but none of the benefit (disclosures are either old, obvious, almost infinitesimally narrow, or all the above).
This is indeed an unfortunate imbalance, for which we have the PTO and the courts to thank.
Which brings me to Ned–
Patentees are, as you suggest, empowered–property rights + sufficient funds to effect those rights = power to exclude. I am, however, at a loss to understand how the lawful exercise of those rights could legitimately be characterized as an “abuse” of power.
It is not the lawful use of the power that is the problem, it is the power itself. Take away or minimize the property rights in the above equation, and the power either disappears or is minimized.
By twice referring to “the merits of patents”, you seem to express concern about the same basic issue as does Mooney–patent quality.
“Some folks are getting paid directly to state a position (that’s what lawyers do)”
I completely disagree with the message that may be received from this comment.
Equating lawyers (who have ethical duties, including, but not limited to, acknowledging controlling law) with bloggers who specialize in spin and misrepresentation is a clear error.
I would LOVE nothing more than to be able to debate – on the merits – and without having to deconstruct the purposeful misrepresentations. I have long stated that the number one quality problem is quite in fact that debate is just not possible when the other side refuses to acknowledge vlaid points made, actual controlling law and positions that invalidate given agendas. The c_rrp-ignore-runaway-and-post-again-syndrome is the problem.
Ya Robert this whole PAE thing started with muthvold observing my website but not wishing to consult even though I must make you money or I dont want payment. He instead took the normal route thats now shutting down the patent system becaues of the money these investors should owe me for my first invention conception profits that they dont want to pay. So they buy up a bunch of weak in most cases subinvention from my partent conceptions and dont return to the correct source for parent conception because I was burnt. Muthvold bought a bunch of trash originally but I hear he is doing better lately but I dont want to get into that poor odds group because I wasent involved originally to guide it away from poor investments.
Ya robert I am the only inventor I know who has a system that offers a partial guarantee to patent purchasers reguarding overpayments but we cant accept underpayments which is all there willing to offer so so far its a no sale because there unfamiliar with the programs we offer and there improved odds of investment sucess see my website at http://www.inventingconsultantcreator.net
Ask and you shall received, Malcolm. The “posture child” your point (1) is Bessen’s book (co-authored with Meurer) entitled,”Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk.” Utter stuff and nonsense, written by economics and academics having no understanding of the U.S. patent system and blindly accepted by the popular media (see Timothy B. Lee’s July 16, 2008 book review). The title says it all with respect to your point (2) (as well as Lee’s blindly accepting July 16, 2008 book review).
They should put a provision in the new legislation that repeat wilful infringing should eliminate the company from the present ownership under a bandit clause and the owners be banded from further companys ownership
Malcolm, I think the problem is abuse of power. If a big company uses its size and wealth and sheer ability to litigate you into a black hole rather than the merits of its patents to obtain licensing revenue, then I think that is wrong. If a small firm composed mainly of lawyers imposes settlement fees on people due to the sheer cost of litigation regardless of the merits of their patents, this too is an abuse of power. Both large and small engage in this exercise, but the large entities pretend to be innocent when they are not.
There’s nothing “right” about Big corp, unless you’re European and you only distinguish between fascism and communism. I prefer the American scale of totalitarianism versus freedom.
Anybody who has interviewed a PR firm to address a policy issue knows that – internet communication – choirs – paid blog posters, etc – are part of the pitch to ‘shape the debate.’ The danger of academic papers – such as the one here above – is that they are purporting to be scholarly works – and therefore a credible/reliable source of fact and law – and policy implications. This is course is part of the PR plan – and these ‘scholarly works’ result in point cites like ‘patent stifle innovation’ in an amicus brief to scotus. And that is the danger.
Indeed, the PR paid shaping of the policy debate, is both active and passive aggressive like the paid blog posting, the funding of scholarly studies and more subtile as well. For example, say you were a new hill staffer and wanted to get up to speed on the patent debates. You google search ‘ mercexchange v ebay amicus briefs’ – it points to this blog as a source of that information. When you click to this blog – you only get the ebay amicus briefs (we need weak patent rights) – and ZERO amicus briefs for Mercexchange (we need strong patent rights).
Dennis, can you give answer to why that is the case?? Is that intentional or something google has done with its search results?
Anybody who has interviewed a PR firm to address a policy issue knows that – internet communication – choirs – paid blog posters, etc – are part of the pitch to ‘shape the debate.’ The danger of academic papers – such as the one here above – is that they are purporting to be scholarly works – and therefore a credible/reliable source of fact and law – and policy implications. This is course is part of the PR plan – and these ‘scholarly works’ result in point cites like ‘patent stifle innovation’ in an amicus brief to scotus. And that is the danger.
Indeed, the PR paid shaping of the policy debate, is both active and passive aggressive like the paid blog posting, the funding of scholarly studies and more subtile as well. For example, say you were a new hill staffer and wanted to get up to speed on the patent debates. You google search ‘ mercexchange v ebay amicus briefs’ – it points to this blog as a source of that information. When you click to this blog – you only get the ebay amicus briefs (we need weak patent rights) – and ZERO amicus briefs for Mercexchange (we need strong patent rights).
Dennis, can you give answer to why that is the case?? Is that intentional or something google has done with its search results?
Ya Robert its a huge consperacy going back 182 years and encompasing everything from A to Z. Since my great great grandfathers invention of fire and metal. No beginning in 1829-30 with the murders of the worlds only inventors George Roberts and his wife to steal the invention of the carriage and all his previous inventions. Then in 1869 Isiah Roberts and his wife were murdered by the edison carnegee tag team for his inventions. and in 1853 Delbert Roberts and if he had a wife were murdered for the estate and refusing to produce inventions. Then with me the grandson its been produce or your dead and the blockage of patent issue by the patent office for 59 years now encompasing some top 10000 invention conceptions or more. Thats why I asked congress for security provisions in new legislations but no dice
PS: You sound all TEA party with this “equal rights” and “equal application of the law” stuff. That’s so passe. All the cool kids know that might makes right.
More guys like you need to get into this battle, because you all are about to lose your ability to recover anything at all.
Small inventors are a large part of my practice (and the most enjoyable part). You are definitely not alone.
If you can’t force a company to the table under threat of suit, then why should they care? Today, there are no settlements because there’s no downside to a large corporate infringer to wait it out and see if the small inventor can get them into court. Most don’t/can’t because of the cost. It really takes a special kind of dunce to think that companies don’t know this and won’t use it.