Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

18 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 4

    Interesting confession on p. 12 of the paper by Prof. Carl Shapiro and Prof. Mark A. Lemley: The Role of Antitrust in Preventing Patent Holdup:
    “E. Actual Holdups Are Very Difficult to Measure
    As just noted, the extensive empirical support for the general theory of holdup consists primarily of studies showing that firms structure their relationships to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of holdup. Critically, the evidence does not involve quantifying the magnitude of actual ex post holdups.36 Indeed, the empirical literature on holdup has relatively few documented examples of large-scale actual holdups.37 “

    1. 4.1

      Lemley is just a shameless mercenary for SV. The fact that any court has ever quoted him is a disgrace to the country. I see too Lemley trying to create another “troll’ like word in “holdup”. What a f’ing a hole this guy is.

    2. 4.2

      That is an incredible admission.

      Lemley is all about marking and sales.

    3. 4.3

      “Qualcomm Inc.’s lucrative patent licensing business lives on, after a court rejected a requirement that the company renegotiate billions of dollars worth of agreements with smartphone makers.” link to finance.yahoo.com

      But a garage inventor who comes up with a patentable invention is a would-be monopolist who has to be called a troll if he asks somebody to pay for using it. Blecchh!

  2. 3

    Lemley >>>> Patent holdup occurs when a patent holder is able to obtain
    unreasonably high royalties by asserting its patent against another
    company’s products because that company’s most efficient way to
    develop, make, and sell those target products involves investments that
    cannot easily be redeployed to non-infringing products

    Lemley >>>Patent holdup has proven one of the most controversial topics in
    innovation policy, in part because companies with a vested interest in
    denying its existence have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to debunk
    it.

    1. 3.1

      Lemley doesn’t miss a trick. (1) So now if you have a patent for a great innovation the problem is deemed that the other company cannot redeploy their resources to make a competing product with you so you have to pay them a royalty. So completely devalues the innovation and the right of the person that made the innovation.

      (2) Lemley who has admitted to making many 10’s of millions from burning down the patent system is now complaining that there are those that are trying to protect patents and we all know that the amount they have have spent is a pittance compared with the money SV has spent to burn the system down. And–we know this for sure because the anti-patent crowd has won at every step such as the AIA, judge appointments by Obama, the briefs at the Scotus, and so forth.

      1. 3.1.1

        Brian: “I am not the messiah, I am not the messiah!”

        Woman: “Only the true messiah denies his divinity!”

        Brian: “What kind of choice does that give me? All right, I am the messiah!”

        Crowd: “He is the messiah!”

        Brian: “Now bugger off!”

        Hmm. When Monty Python did it, it was funny. And harmless.

      2. 3.1.2

        I LOL at the title of the Lemley article. So it’s not enough to (1) apportion damages (watering down from the floor of a reasonable royalty at that!), (2) stand injunction law on its head, so it’s only be there for the dominate market player (if that), (3) create the abomination of the Kings Privy PTAB court – all challenged patents by the ‘politically favored’ challenger shall be held invalid, (4) eliminate objective evidence in the obviousness standard, (5) re-create that 2nd circuit abomination the gist or heart the invention test (subject matter test), and more… But now . . . wait for it. If you still have the temerity to bring an enforcement action under that stacked deck –> you need to face anti-trust counter claims. He’s (the serial infringer bar) already killed the patient now he wants to grind up the body and throw it in your face. Guess paid haters gotta keep on hating.

        1. 3.1.2.1

          The thing that makes Lemley such a heinous human being is that rather than going to Congress to end the patent right, Lemley has used judicial activism with unethical papers and millions of lobbying dollars.

          What. An. A. Hole. This. Guy. Is.

          1. 3.1.2.1.1

            His tactics have indeed been reprehensible, and he is a prime example of why academics (especially LEGAL academics) should have codes of ethics FAR MORE stringent than the codes of ethics that attorneys must operate under.

    2. 3.2

      Like an ad for ‘made in China.’ He’s down right Orwellian.

    3. 3.3

      “Unreasonably high royalties”: unreasonableness is in the eye of the beholder, eh?

      Presumably, the royalty is cheaper than both
      1. doing without the invention and
      2. inventing around the patent.

      If it were not, a reasonable competitor would do one of those instead of paying the royalty.

      1. 3.3.1

        SVG,

        Your post hints at one of the benefits of having a strong patent system that the Efficient Infringer crowd ever tries to make out as a ‘bad thing.’

        Strong patent systems work BEST with both carrot and stick approach, and as the adage goes, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

        BY making it – painfully – necessary to invent around, innovation is promoted – not stymied or delayed – by the blocking action of patents.

        You can’t have” is a motivator for the types of work-arounds that bring about breakthrough and disruptive innovation.

        This is a primary example of why making ‘infringement’ to be merely a convenient and efficient mechanism is actually a blight to innovation.

  3. 2

    Lemley tears….

    Patent holdup has proven one of the most controversial topics in innovation policy, in part because companies with a vested interest in denying its existence have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to debunk it. Notwithstanding a barrage of political and academic attacks, both the general theory of holdup and its practical application in patent law remain valid and pose significant concerns for patent policy.

    Denying its existence?

    No.

    More like trying to de-spin the Lemley attacks on what it means to HAVE a strong patent system that actually supports the negative right of what a patent is.

    Maybe “Bits and Bytes” can stop dredging up such anti-patent muck…

    1. 2.1

      >>Maybe “Bits and Bytes” can stop dredging up such anti-patent muck…

      Indeed. This blog has definitely been one of the platforms for the anti-patent academic / paid off by SV crowd.

    2. 2.2

      Don’t touch my straw man!

      1. 2.2.1

        Oh, how I wish it were straw…

  4. 1

    Advice for Robin Mitchell

    (“Robin Mitchell is an electronic engineer who has been involved in electronics since the age of 13. After completing a BEng at the University of Warwick, Robin moved into the field of online content creation developing articles, news pieces, and projects aimed at professionals and makers alike. Currently, Robin runs a small electronics business, MitchElectronics, which produces educational kits and resources.

    Do NOT talk about legal matters when you have not the faintest clue of what you are speaking about.

    It really does matter whether or not you have a background in law, or in the history of innovation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture