Posts Tagged ‘Non-practicing entity’
The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45, by James E. Bessen, Michael J. Meurer, and Jennifer Laurissa Ford.
Patrick Anderson at GametimeIP wrote and excellent analysis of this paper entitled, Did Serial Infringers Commission “Academic” Patent Study To Support Widespread Infringement? He notes that the authors’ thank the “Coalition for Patent Fairness”, which is the group of large companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Dell, etc. who have been pushing to weaken our patent laws for years. He believes it is unlikely that their support was limited to “atta boys.”
First, and perhaps even more importantly, the basis for the conclusion rests on the laughable assertion that “reaction of the [accused infringer] firm’s share price during the days following the filing of [a patent infringement] lawsuit” is by any means a valid proxy for estimating the “private losses” of companies so accused. Second, the authors imply that monies paid by infringers but not reaching “small inventors” has somehow been entirely wasted, without benefit. Finally, the researcher’s objectivity is compromised–not only by the apparent close relationship with companies routinely accused of appropriating inventions belonging to others–but by the way they present their findings to the reader. In particular, the authors disparage an entire class of patent owners based on reasons entirely beyond the patent owner’s control.
Please read the full article.
The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls , Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 11-45, by James E. Bessen, Michael J. Meurer, and Jennifer Laurissa Ford.
The excellent book Great Again by Henry R. Nothhaft with David Kline points out that in the middle 19th century:
Foreign observers attributed much of the country’s (U.S.) rapid technological progress to its distinctive patent system. Quite revolutionary in design at inception, the U.S.patent system came to be much admired for providing broad access to property rights in new technological knowledge and for facilitating trade in patented technologies. These features attracted the technologically creative, even those who lacked the capital to directly exploit their invention . . . and also fostered a division of labor between the conduct of inventive activity and the application of technical discoveries to actual production. It is no coincidence that Britain and many other European countries [later] began to modify their patent institutions to make them more like those of the Americans. (emphasis added)
They point out that in the U.S 85% of all patents were licensed by their inventors, while only 30% of patents in Britain were licensed. In the late 19th centuryU.S. inventors were increasingly operating as independent inventors who extracted returns from their discoveries by licensing or selling their patent rights. Among these inventors were Edison, Bell, Tesla, etc. “An astonishing two thirds of all America’s great inventors in the nineteenth century were actually NPEs” (Non-Practicing Entities). But today’s modern Luddites would call these great inventors trolls. They claim all value is created by production and marketing or if they are economists they claim all value is create by manipulating monetary instruments and deny the source of all human values, the mind. They denigrate inventors who demand a return on their efforts as imposing a tax on innovation. Invention is the only source of per capita increases in wealth.
The book asks:
Does it really make sense to consider Edison a “patent troll” just because he licensed most of his inventions rather than commercializing them himself? As the inventor of electric light and power, the phonograph, and many other world-changing new technologies, his contributions toAmerica’s economic progress are beyond dispute.
Is there any evidence of a patent litigation (troll) explosion?
Judge Michel former head of the CAFC, the court which hears all patent appeals, points out that the number of patent suits filed each year has remained constant at less than three thousand. Only about 100 of these suits ever go to trial. In a technology based economy with over 300 million people and 1 million active patents this is trivial.
The reality is the Patent troll/ litigation crises is a very clever marketing ploy by large multinational companies that want to be able to steal U.S.inventors’ technology. The America Invents Act will put the final nail in the coffin of U.S.innovation if it passes, by making it even easier to steal U.S. innovation. It is a product of these same multinational companies that are not interested in vitality of the U.S.economy, but in their short term profits.
The term patent trolls is usually applied to companies that enforce patents that they are not practicing. These Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) include companies specifically organized for this purpose such as Intellectual Ventures. However, it also includes Universities and divisions of most large corporations such as IBM. Many of these corporations complain about NPEs. However, any consistent definition of a NPE (troll) would include these hypocrites.
- A Christmas Tale: ‘I Am My Brother’s Keeper’ – and How it Applied to Patents
- Long Term Economic Predictions 2011
- The Science of Economic Growth: Part 2
- The Science of Economic Growth: Part 1
- The History of Patent Damages
- Repeal of Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank Proposed
- Justice Breyer: Patent Ignorance
- New Ex-Parte Appeals Rules from the USPTO
- Mark Twain’s Birthday: Thoughts on Patents
- US Brain Drain