The LexisNexis Major Newspaper database includes most large market newspapers. The database was searched for articles discussing “patent reform.”
In today’s news, are the reports that the House Bill is out of committee. However, without major coalition building amendments, the legislation is unlikely to become law.
With respect to Michael Slonecker’s comments, I agree that such a convergent product is unpatentable. It is less about patent protection than freedom-to-operate.
I apologize about the first link. The closing parentheses in the comment corrupted that link. It is:
link to blog.aesisgroup.com
The persons drafting these proposals should review article 4B ofthe Paris Convention. In particular, activity arising in the priority here cannot give rise to any third–party right or any right of personal possession:
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
link to wipo.int
—
Article 4
A
(1) Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.
(2) Any filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the domestic legislation of any country of the Union or under bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded between countries of the Union shall be recognized as giving rise to the right of priority.
(3) By a regular national filing is meant any filing that is adequate to establish the date on which the application was filed in the country concerned, whatever may be the subsequent fate of the application.
B.
Consequently, any subsequent filing in any of the other countries of the Union before the expiration of the periods referred to above shall not be invalidated by reason of any acts accomplished in the interval, in particular, another filing, the publication or exploitation of the invention, the putting on sale of copies of the design, or the use of the mark, and such acts cannot give rise to any third–party right or any right of personal possession. Rights acquired by third parties before the date of the first application that serves as the basis for the right of priority are reserved in accordance with the domestic legislation of each country of the Union
Mr. Gurel,
I could not find the site for your first link, but I did find and open the second. I was struck by your interest in the young man who presented by “Inner Voice” (or something like that) to the judges.
Sadly, current law virtually ensures that what he envisions would not be patentable. The “reforms” only make the matter worse.
I have written about – including in the Wall Street Journal (see: link to blog.aesisgroup.com) – the implications of patent reform for medical technology focusing in particular, on the growing area of convergent medical technologies. Basically, this new patent reform bill will be more in favor of such combinatorial innovation. For a more detailed review of this, please see the article:
“Patent Reform Act of 2007: Innovation, Implications and the American Inventor” which you can find at:
link to blog.aesisgroup.com
So called patent reform is going to be shot down once again in spite of all the money being spent on public relations and lobbying by the Coalition for Patent fairness and PIRACY.
There are no mythical vicious trolls suddenly jumping out from under bridges to waylay the poor misunderstood patent bandits who are escaping with their pirated loot.
The reality is that if the companies using patented technology dealt reputably with inventors that there would be no profit to be made in enforcement activities. In other words Coalition for Patent fairness and PIRACY members are the sole cause of their woes. Take a look at the history of wrong doing by the Piracy Coalition members, there is ample evidence of both poor judgment and a lack of ethics and moral fiber.
Ronald J. Riley,
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.
I’ve seen “the worst explanation of the patent reform bill”
Can anyone recommend a really good explanatory article on the bills as passed?
(please include a link)
I guess this qualifies as a “minor” news article from a websit, but I think I just found what is quite possibly the worst explanation of the patent reform bill: link to betanews.com
Here’s an example:
Today, when a plaintiff in an infringement suit claims infringement against a company, it claims harm on the part of the company as a whole. But the new provision would have challengers focus instead on the skill and acumen of the person to whom a patent would be (or has been) issued, rather than the corporate strategy of the company that employs him or her.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the bill attempts to clarify the law’s language regarding individuals who apply for patents on behalf of inventors, even though these agents may not actually have any skill at all. “A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter,” another part of the bill reads, “may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.”
Indian Patent Law meets US Reform. Why don’t we just outsource everything to India? That way India can learn, and adopt for themselves, all of our superior patent laws, while also examining our patents at a much cheaper rate. Seems like it would streamline India’s adherence to WTO obligations (specifically for pharma) while maximizing the efficiency of our PTO. What is great about this approach would be that the Indian engineers busily reducing to practice all of tomorrow’s great ideas can simply file everything in one langauge.
I just got to thinking. If they dump all of the examination onto the applicant in the form of an examination support document and outsource the search to who-knows-whom, they will probably take away examination time. Which means the examiner will have to basically do a thumbs up or down without proper time for search or consideration, but will still be held accountable for a bad allowance. I think some of the attorneys are right; the applicants and the examiners will be hurt.
“If you really want to make things interesting, have anyone who successfully invalidates a patent be paid by the U.S. government for their time and costs. Afterall, should it not be the Patent Office that pays for their own mistakes. That is what we in the business call accountability.”
This concept makes me laugh! I love it!
What is a patent troll?
A patent troll is someone who misuses patent rights to extort money from others.
So are we talking about the Dell case where they had a standard adopted for a idea that they were having patented and then sue the members of the standard committee for using the standard that Dell assisted in getting adopted?
What is misuse? It is attempting to improperly enforce a patent or attempting to enforce an invalid patent.
So would you be talking about IBM who sues on one patent and then forces a license to the entire IBM patent portfolio, the validity of which many of the patents is specious at best.
The news reported recently that one law firm was sanctioned for pressing improper cases, and the sanction was upheld by the CAFC. Trying to enforce a valid patent against someone when you have a good faith belief of infringement is not misuse.
Yeah, but what about licensing invalid patents and then being able to sue on the license? That sounds a bit trollish to me.
What is extortion? Filing a complaint and then immediately offering to settle for the nuisance value.
As I have stated again and again this is a litigation problem seen across all industries. It is a problem with lawyer’s salaries and not patents.
I’ve come across several cases where the “license fee” is a nominal lump sum that is about what it would cost to perform a good non-infringement and invalidity opinion, along with prepare an answer and handle the initial phases of a lawsuit.
Unfortunately, the PTO created a cottage industry of patent trolls by issuing so many invalid patents recently.
There are post allowance attacks on patents. Use them. Don’t whine about it.
The entry fee for overcoming the presumption of validity is so high that the trolls have lots of room to work their extortion. Totally untrue.
What does an inter partes reexamination cost? The fact is that the buinesses are too cheap to want to use the remedies available to them.
If you really want to make things interesting, have anyone who successfully invalidates a patent be paid by the U.S. government for their time and costs. Afterall, should it not be the Patent Office that pays for their own mistakes. That is what we in the business call accountability.
What is a patent troll?
A patent troll is someone who misuses patent rights to extort money from others.
What is misuse? It is attempting to improperly enforce a patent or attempting to enforce an invalid patent. The news reported recently that one law firm was sanctioned for pressing improper cases, and the sanction was upheld by the CAFC. Trying to enforce a valid patent against someone when you have a good faith belief of infringement is not misuse.
What is extortion? Filing a complaint and then immediately offering to settle for the nuisance value. I’ve come across several cases where the “license fee” is a nominal lump sum that is about what it would cost to perform a good non-infringement and invalidity opinion, along with prepare an answer and handle the initial phases of a lawsuit.
Unfortunately, the PTO created a cottage industry of patent trolls by issuing so many invalid patents recently. The entry fee for overcoming the presumption of validity is so high that the trolls have lots of room to work their extortion.
I think somebody’s sarcasm detector is broken…
A Patentee wrote: “The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant.”
How does a non-litigant “compel” a large company to do anything. With this as your “theory” you will always be just “A Patentee,” not a licensor. Oh sure, you may get a license here and there, but you can bet the value you’re going to get compared to the revenue it is generating for the company is a nit. I suspect that your inventions will just get stolen and exploited with this as your licensing program.
A Patentee wrote: “The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant.”
How does a non-litigant “compel” a large company to do anything. With this as your “theory” you will always be just “A Patentee,” not a licensor. Oh sure, you may get a license here and there, but you can bet the value you’re going to get compared to the revenue it is generating for the company is a nit. I suspect that your inventions will just get stolen and exploited with this as your licensing program.
A Patentee wrote: “The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant.”
How does a non-litigant “compel” a large company to do anything. With this as your “theory” you will always be just “A Patentee,” not a licensor. Oh sure, you may get a license here and there, but you can bet the value you’re going to get compared to the revenue it is generating for the company is a nit. I suspect that your inventions will just get stolen and exploited with this as your licensing program.
A Patentee wrote: “The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant.”
How does a non-litigant “compel” a large company to do anything. With this as your “theory” you will always be just “A Patentee,” not a licensor. Oh sure, you may get a license here and there, but you can bet the value you’re going to get compared to the revenue it is generating for the company is a nit. I suspect that your inventions will just get stolen and exploited with this as your licensing program.
A Patentee wrote: “The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant.”
How does a non-litigant “compel” a large company to do anything. With this as your “theory” you will always be just “A Patentee,” not a licensor. Oh sure, you may get a license here and there, but you can bet the value you’re going to get compared to the revenue it is generating for the company is a nit. I suspect that your inventions will just get stolen and exploited with this as your licensing program.
Funny – I was hoping to see responses to my apportionment comment, the troll comment was just a throwaway. I don’t really mean to pick on trolls and just to be clear, I never said that they should be prohibited from enforcing their patents in court or that I read current law from preventing them from doing so (i.e., the “right to exclude” is irrelevant to my remarks). Moreover, I agree with an earlier comment to the effect that there is nothing wrong with assigning your patent to the highest bidder, troll or otherwise. Lastly, is undoubtedly true that trolling enhances the value of patents generally by some degree and may even spur a increase in innovation over that which would exist in the absence of trolls.
That increase, however, is marginal and comes at a substantial cost in terms of burdens on the court system and increased costs to consumers and, thus, my point was one of policy – as between trolls, who neither innovate nor bring a product to market, and manufacturers, who do at least the latter and often both, the law is moving BACK towards more protection for the manufacturer and I think that is a good thing. (Reasonable people can differ as to whether it is also going so far as to stifle innovation).
I am not even sure that trolls need be all that concerned about the apportionment issue. Under apportionment, a patentee (of whatever stripe) is entitled to recover damages based on 100% of the value contributed by the patent (i.e., a reasonable royalty based on that value or that entire value as lost profits). That is, trolls with valuable patents will continue to enjoy valuable recoveries.
Unless NPC’s economic argument is “necessary” to a “compelling” state interest, any patent abolition bill, or anything close to it, would most certainly be struck down by that same KSR Court that was “motivated” to issue a 9-0 opinion.
On a related note, the Supreme Court should take up a case and clarify whether patents are property rights or more akin to a tort remedy. Such an opinion would be instructive in the patent troll debate.
There was a great case entitled Zoltek originally scribed by C.J. Damich of the Claims Court, arguing that patent rights as property could be usurped as a Taking under the Fifth A. The CAFC reversed, and the Court refused to grant cert. Insight from the Court regarding whether patent rights are “property” would be helpful in determining proper patent policy as to the strength of a patent, and the rights associated in the bundle, i.e. if there even is a bundle in the patent context.
Where you stand on the issue of whether a patent litigation is more akin to a tort action or property action will likely dictate your view of the conduct of the so-called patent “trolls.” That is, if you view a patent litigation as an action to “eject” another from occupying a property right with the proper remedy of restoring that property interest to the rightful owner, then it is likely that you would find a patent as a valid property right, and the actions of patent trolls in acquiring those patent rights as perfectly legitimate. We certainly do not call Landlords who have no intent to occupy the land but only to rent it out to people who cannot affor to purchase a home “land trolls.”
However, if you view a patent litigation as more akin to a tort action, then the proper remedy would be to place the injured party back in the position they were before the infringement, and this view focuses on restoring the injured party’s personal rights. Under this tort theory of patent infringement, “patent trolls” look more like assignees of a P.I. action, i.e. those guys on TV who offer you an undervalued Lump Sum of cash for the rights to sue the person who caused the injury for far more money. Under this “tort theory,” the stigma associated with a “patent troll” is due to the general resentment that the prevailing plaintiff in the patent litigation did nothing to be entitled to the hefty reasonable roylaty (see Lucent v. Microsfot in S.D. CA, J. Brewster, for an example of a hefty 1.5 billion royalty; I am expressing no opinion on the merits of the royalty), much like the guy in TV did nothing to be entitled to the hefty PI settlement acquired from the injured plainitff for pennies on the dollar. Thats seems to be theri argument, at least to me. Anyone interested in licensing my tort rights?
If patent reform doesn’t happen this time around the next bill we see may well be a patent abolition bill. The economic argument against patents continues to grow in strength and respectability, as does the strength of opposition to patents in general. In a year or two I expect to start see a growing movement seriously advocating the complete abolition of patents. We are starting to see this now.
So long as opposition to patents continues to grow, the longer reform is delayed, the more draconian it is likely to be.
Dean, your question is very simple to answer. Of course inventors have a right to sell their patent. But they better sell it to a non-litigant. The non-litigant would never assert the patent and with that stipulation, would have a much higher chance of obtaining higher returns on his investment than any patent litigant. The higher returns would come from licensees such as Intel or Oracle, who would feel compelled to take a license from a non-litigant. How do I know that? Well they normally refuse to take a license from a patent owner who might litigate. I therefore conclude that they will act differently and will be more agreeable if they knew the patent owner would not litigate.
In fact, my theory has a much broader application for stopping civil litigation altogether. If everybody will agree not to sue, then their opponents will imediately cave in to their demands due to the universal compelling need to reward non-litigants. So you see, Dean, a patent should be worth MORE to a non-litigant than to a troll. Non-litigants should therefore be able to outbid the trolls and inventors would benefit by receiving higher consideration for their patent right. Don’t you see Dean, that is how we are going to beat the trolls….
No matter what “reforms” may be made to the patent laws, one thing is for certain…the cost of the patent process will rise to even headier levels than it currently is. Perhaps it would be wise to ask the question “At what point does the system become unaffordable to the public at large?”
TJA said: “patents are intended to protect (i) inventors and (ii) manufacturers who practice patented inventions, not litigants”
I’m curious what the group thinks about the right to sell patents.
Should inventors be allowed to sell their patents to anyone (e.g., a litigant), or only to manufacturers (which litigate against their competitors)?
(Dennis seems to be temporarily unavailable, so I’ll ask the law professor-ish questions…)
LOL – I think it’s even less likely to pass given some of the changes made in the Senate committee. Good grief – they even added special protections for one industry (banks). What the hell kind of reform is that?
Senate version also now out of committee, apparantly largely unchanged. Does anyone really think this isn’t going to pass?
TJA: – “As far as ‘trolls,’ you hardly need more than a passing knowledge of patent law to understand that patents are intended to protect (i) inventors and (ii) manufacturers who practice patented inventions, not litigants”.
Apparently, TJA only has passing ‘knowledge’ of patent law not understanding that patent rights are exclusion rights. See my prior post.
Protection but not to litigants? Can TJA explain how patent law provides ‘protection’ to those that are unable to assert and litigate their right?
“entities that have invented nothing and produce nothing, but have acquired patents”
If they have invented nothing then they should not have been issued a patent in the first place.
However, I suspect you’re talking about companies that acquire other people’s patents and try to exploit them. The thing you’re missing is that when such a company acquires a patent, they’ve got to buy it from someone. For many independent inventors, this is an ideal situation – someone is willing to pay them a lump sum for their patent rights, so they can move on to developing their next idea.
What do you think would happen to the ability of independent inventors to sell their patent rights if laws were introduce to preclude certain types of purchasers from enforcing these rights?
My mistake, it was Fred’s, not MeToo’s comments that I was referring to.
As far as “trolls,” you hardly need more than a passing knowledge of patent law to understand that patents are intended to protect (i) inventors and (ii) manufacturers who practice patented inventions, not litigants. If legal reforms seeking a proper balance between patent rights and competition disadvantge entities that have invented nothing and produce nothing, but have acquired patents for the sole purpose of extorting license fees by threatening litigation, society has gained.
Fred: “that website agrees with me – universities are not trolls”
Richard Cauley: “I agree that universities are not trolls”
Fred and Richard Cauley, in your opinion what traits do universities have or lack that keeps them from being ‘trolls’? I’m just curious what definitions different people are using. Thanks
Why is everybody talking about a distinction between a “troll” and other patent holders? You all (including Justice Kennedy in eBay) appear to be ignorant of patent law. A patent is the right to exclude others, not an obligation to exploit or produce anything. The value of that property right cannot depend on who owns it and how they use it. Americans that attempt to make a distinction are shooting themselves in the foot because in 20 years we will all be trolls. American componies will be making or producing very little. Everything will be made in the far east.
Dennis: There is nothing ironic about companies complaining about damage awards that exceed the economic value contributed by the claimed invention while at the same time complaining about the harm an injunction would inflict. For a simple example, consider a device made of two patented components (Patent A and Patent B), both of which are necessary to its operation, but neither of which, by itself, is responsible for the entire value of the marketed product. An injuction against infringing Patent A would force the manufacturer off the market, but a damages award to Patentee A based on the entire value of the marketed article, in addition to compensating Patentee A for the use its invention, would compensate Patentee A for the manufacturer’s use Patentee B’s invention. That would be unjust in all cases, but even more so where the relative value contributed by Patent A is small.
MeToo: You make some good points. Under the apportionment provision of the Reform Act, patentees will be entitled to a reasonable royalty based on 100% of the value of their invention, just as they would in an arm’s length transaction (true, the Georgia-Pacific methodolgy is imperfect, but so are arm’s length transactions). Hardly unfair. What they will not be entitled to is a royalty based on 100% of the selling price of the product, (unless the patented invention is an entire marketable article). I agree that apportionment, which is well-grounded in Supreme Court precedent, will happen one way or another – if not by Congress, then by the Court, which, as we have seen, will not be shy about applying its own patent law precedent.
The name “Tech” for the IT industry is so . . . ironic.
Fred — I agree that universities are not trolls, but it still should be harder for them to prove irreparable harm than a patentee who is a competitor of the infringer.
I think that the damages apportionment provision of the patent reform act is very likely to survive with a few tweaks [like the House Judiciary committee added]. Assuming that some bill will be passed, I would be interested in peoples’ opinions as to what provisions they think the Congress will actually jettison along the way.
DDC: My question had more to do with the infringer. If no injunction is requested, I wonder if that would prevent a court from even addressing the issue of a “compulsory license.” And if that were to happen, couldn’t the patent owner file another infringement suit one year later – this time, having a VERY strong case for willful infringement? As for other cases in which compulsory licenses have been granted, I did find a few more.
It’s also ironic to me that some companies are screaming about damage awards which far exceed the true value of the invention, while at the same time arguing that an injunction would place undue hardship on them if they have to stop using that tiny invention having only a limited monetary value.
MeToo: And what would happen if a patent owner sues for infringement but doe not seek an injunction?
DDC: If you do not request an injunction, the court will not grant an injunction. There are cases where this occurred, but no serious on-point caselaw that I know.
I forgot about Finisar – can you point to any others? And what would happen if a patent owner sues for infringement but doe not seek an injunction?
Plenty of courts have granted compulsory licenses pending appeals. Finisar v. DirecTV comes to mind. I saw a website that has plenty more about trolls, at http://trolltracker.blogspot.com And, for the record, that website agrees with me – universities are not trolls.
But that doesn’t mean that universities should be entitled to jury verdicts out of whack with reality. Damages apportionment is going to happen one way or another. Embrace it, don’t be scared of it. Effective plaintiff’s lawyers, for deserving patents, are going to still be able to secure huge jury verdicts.
As for Dennis’s comments – as well as most others in the IP blogosphere – that patent reform isn’t likely to happen, or, as is the more popular expression, is “dead on arrival,” I think that is deluded. One only need look at the multi-million jury verdicts coming out against US companies in favor of patent holding companies to know that some serious changes have to be made. The system will work itself out so that there is a balanced and fair bill passed. But one will be passed.
All this talk about whether or not a “troll” (whatever that is) can get an injunction brings to mind an issue which I think has largely been ignored – has any infringer been granted a compulsory license? In other words, has anyone seen a decision in which a court ruled that an infringer could continue what the infringing activity as long as they paid an ongoing royalty to the patent owner (or even a lump sum)? Refusing to grant an injunction is NOT the same thing as telling an infringer they can keep infringing in perpetuity if they so choose.
“my analysis [I’ve pulled all the cases awarding or not awarding injunctions] shows that non-trolls are pretty much uniformly getting injunctions.”
Well, that of course is going to depend on what a troll is. Is a university a troll, for example? I’ve heard them called such. How about Dean Kamen? Qualcomm?
In general, as I’ve said, it’s really the principle of equity that’s going to be tested and interpreted. Those principles are going to have to accommodate the likes of universities, Dean Kamen, and Qualcomm. I don’t think “troll” is going to make it into the terminology the SC employs.
Tom — my analysis [I’ve pulled all the cases awarding or not awarding injunctions] shows that non-trolls are pretty much uniformly getting injunctions.
The main beneficiary is BIG tech. They are providing the lobbying.
If indeed the patent “reform” bill passes in its current form, it may have some very much unintended consequences, making for a very interesting Constitutional showdown.
A major effect of the “reform” is to eviscerate the ability of patent holders to get reasonable damages when technology companies infringe on their patents. But then the issue inevitably becomes, can they get an injunction, which would provide them with a much larger compensation? It’s going to be harder and harder to make a case that patents represent anything like true property when an idea can be copied at will by an infringer, incurring at most minor penalties for doing so.
The problem is, the SC is now pretty heavily sided toward those who are inclined to take property rights very seriously, however the Congress may otherwise be inclined. The sheer inequity of allowing willy-nilly infringement with minor costs will make it harder for the SC to justify NOT enabling injunctions in a wide variety of cases, simply to preserve the intuitive sense that patents represent any kind of true property.
Without a doubt, the SC will be seeing cases in which paltry damages have been exacted against an infringer, and the principle of equity is being tested as to whether an injunction should be allowed. It’s going to be very hard for the SC to conclude that fairness has been served if the injunction is not allowed. Their way of remedying this circumstance would be to interpret the principle of equity so that it gets broad application.
Here is one for ya. If this is really Pharma against Tech . . . well Tech automatically loses. Bush is in the pockets of Pharma. As a result, any bill from Congress that hurts Pharma gets vetoed. Bush isn’t exactly friendly to Tech. It might very well be that both sides realize this is a real cash cow for lobbying money. The Republicans are raising only about 1/3rd of what Democrats are raising. Therefore, this jettison from committee might be nothing more than a money-making venture for the House members. The Republicans really need the money. The Democrats, never one for finding a dollar they wouldn’t do anything to get or tax, went along for the ride. Or was that they are both taking Pharma and Tech. for a ride. No matter, it isn’t like that money was earmarked for preparation and prosecution.
I’ve seen a lot of commentary (which I believe to be correct)to the effect that the patent reform legislation is pitting the pharma industry against the tech industry. Does anyone have a view on whether the pharma industry is making any headway here against the tech industry’s clear head start in the lobbying game?
Opampman, you are obviously wired to provide negative feedback …
Richard Cauley is right–it’s going to pass. The democratic-controlled congress hasn’t managed to pass anything of significance. After the immigration bill failed to pass, they became very intent on getting patent reform through. I do not see how anyone can say it’s not going to pass at this point. In fact, I think the patent bar is in a state of denial on this.
Richard Cauley wrote:
“the only real opposition I have seen is …” enter list of numerous groups. Why don’t list the groups not opposed, you might write shorter posts. BTW, you left out about a dozen other lobbying groups — Bio, …
“I don’t understand Dennis’s comment that it is unlikely to become law.” – Richard Cauley
Dennise has a strange instinct which makes his predictions pretty accurate. It reminds me of the 9-0 prediction in KSR and the predictions on July 4.
Hope he is still right this time.
How do you think those articles make their way into the newspapers in the first place??? It is typically NOT the result of journalistic efforts to report current congressional activity. Rather, the same people pushing hard for the reform bill are largely responsible for these articles making their way into various newspapers. And Dennis is indeed right – this bill is unlikely to pass without some serious arm twisting (and, more than likely, some serious editing).
Well, when this major piece of legislation clears committee, unanimously, virtually unchanged, I’m not surprised the media is reporting on it.
I don’t understand Dennis’s comment that it is unlikely to become law. Seems like, there is pretty wide bipartisan support for the legislation — in this Congress, anything you can get through unanimously seems to have already built a coalition. Indeed, the only real opposition I have seen is the far right wing [e.g. Phyllis Schlafly], the small inventors patent lobby, patent trolls and their attorneys and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which seems to exist primarily for the purpose of sending out press releases.
This bill is passing, folks, in a form that won’t vary much from the version that was originally proposed — better get used to it.
Dennis’ analysis is still the correct metric if the double counting counts the same article source appearing in multiple news outlets. This is because it indicates “news real estate” dedicated to the topic. After all, the *content* of many of these articles is essentially identical anyway and is extremely monolithic: either you get the IT industries’ line of the ‘patent system is broken’ or you get (unfortunately much fewer) responses that it is not.
Double-Counting: Yes, the data can be double counted with the lexis database if the same article was published in two separate newspapers. However, the Major Newspapers rely much less on AP-type reports than do smaller local papers.
I’m unfamiliar with that database. Does it double-count for things like AP stories that may get run in 2 or more papers (but be the same story)?
Comments are closed.