PUBPAT Challenges Patriot Scientific Microprocessor patent [LWN.net]

From:		Public Patent Foundation <info-AT-pubpat.org>
To:		PUBPAT News List <news-AT-pubpat.org>
Subject:		PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Challenges Patriot Scientific Microprocessor Patent
Date:		Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:57:07 -0500

PUBPAT CHALLENGES PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC MICROPROCESSOR PATENT: Patent 
Office Asked to Review and Revoke Patent Licensing Company's Widely 
Asserted Patent

New York, NY -- February 1, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation 
("PUBPAT") announced today that it has filed a formal request with the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office to review a patent held by 
Patriot Scientific Corp. (OB: PTSC) that the company, which boasts of 
"primarily focusing on deriving revenue from licensing patents", is 
widely asserting against producers of computer microprocessors.  In its 
filing, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware 
of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent 
(U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336), described in detail how the prior art 
invalidates the patent and asked that the patent be revoked.

Despite no longer making any product or service itself, Patriot 
Scientific is asserting the patent against those that produce or 
distribute microprocessors, either alone or with a computer.  Patriot 
Scientific's assertion of the patent has included the filing of 
infringement lawsuits and the sending of over 150 letters threatening 
litigation.  PUBPAT challenged the patent because Patriot Scientific's 
aggressive assertion of it is causing substantial public harm by 
threatening to levy additional costs on the production of 
microprocessors, which could make every computer Americans buy more 
expensive.

"Patriot Scientific is yet another corporate front for contingency fee 
patent attorneys to sue and threaten productive members of society," 
said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.  "While one can't blame 
them for doing what is in their self interest - much like one can't 
blame cockroaches for appearing when it is you who left crumbs on the 
counter - it is past time for our policy makers to ask themselves 
whether such activity is beneficial for the public, or is instead a 
siphoning of resources that could be better spent on doing technological 
research or passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods."

The Request for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the patent Patriot 
Scientific is widely asserting against microprocessors can be found at 
http://www.pubpat.org/patriotscientific.htm.

Contact:

Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director
Public Patent Foundation
(212) 796-0570
info@pubpat.org

About the Public Patent Foundation

The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal 
services organization working to protect the public from the harms 
caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by undeserved 
patents and unsound patent policy.  PUBPAT provides the general public 
and those specific persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to 
the system governing patents, with representation, advocacy, and 
education.  To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT 
News List by visiting http://www.pubpat.org.  To be removed from the 
PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line 
to news-request@pubpat.org.

###

(Log in to post comments)

PUBPAT Challenges Patriot Scientific Microprocessor patent

Posted Feb 11, 2007 3:49 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

While the article does say that PUBPAT has challenged the patent on the basis that the invention was already known, the majority of its press release isn't about whether the patent is valid. It's about how nice it would be for everyone else if this patent holder is found not to have a valid patent. This is the wrong way to approach that goal. If PUBPAT's problem is with the existence of patent rights, it should attack patent law itself, not particular patents.

PUBPAT also insinuates that there's something wrong with patents belonging to a company whose entire business is enforcing patents. This reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of economics. If patents are good at all, the patent-only companies are vital to their success. The patent-only company buys a patent from an inventor, thus paying the inventor for his contribution without burdening him with legal work and uncertainty and delay in getting paid.

If this is an invalid patent, PUBPAT should direct its objection to the patent and not its owner, and if it's a valid patent that isn't in the public's best interest, PUBPAT should direct its objection to the law and not the patent.