Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 3, 2010 8:49 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica) by Lefty
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Not many companies want to go through the rigmarole of asking the USPTO to review a patent, then going to the BPAI if that doesn't work, then going to the (pro-patent) CAFC.

Amazon's one-click patent is a good example. The review took five years and the end result was that the patent was narrowed rather than rejected.

"Take 'em to court!" might be reasonable advice in some industries (pharma, automobile), but for tech firms and for low-budget software projects, the review process it too slow and too expensive, by orders of magnitude.

More info on this problem:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Invalid_patents_remain_unchallenged

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 3, 2010 13:56 UTC (Sun) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (5 responses)

I'm sorry, but if many companies are unwilling to ask the PTO to review a patent, in spite of positive results having been obtained that way in the past, then they've chosen the bed in which they're going to lie, and assisted in perpetuating the problem (the solution to which is not "Throw out the entire system!")

Yes, it takes a long time to get a patent or to litigate one. Justice has never been quick, except when it's been bad.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 3, 2010 16:47 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

The positive results are so rare, they don't make the procedure worthwhile. The smart business decision is usually to pay the patent licence, even though this is a pure injustice.

The only way to have justice is to exclude patents from domains where a significant amount of development/progress is performed by individuals, by projects with little or no direct financial interest in the software they produce, and by large numbers of low-cost SMEs.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 3, 2010 19:23 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (2 responses)

I guess the point is, yeh, I agree that quick cheap justice doesn't work, and it's painfully obvious that slow expensive processes don't provide justice in this context, so the patent system simply doesn't work for software.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 4, 2010 23:49 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (1 responses)

I suppose it depends on where you're standing. Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs probably think it doesn't work too badly (and I say this in full awareness of the ~$650 million judgement against Apple delivered today for infringement in the matter of their "CoverFlow" display in iTunes, etc.)

I personally feel there are significant flaws in the systemmostly relating to a lack of expertise on the part of examiners in many cases, an overload of applications, and the term of protection being too long. I also feel that the courts need to adopt an ironclad principle that a plaintiff who brings an infringement case and loses must pay all of the costs, which would go a fair way toward leveling the playing field when it comes to litigating "bad" patents.

I'm not prepared to throw the system out the window, myself. So, we agree that it "doesn't work", but I'm still interested in knowing what your thoughts are on fixing it. I think we all need to be aware that the reality is that patents are, in a way, like nuclear bombs: anyone who has 'em is not going to want to be the first volunteer to unilaterally "disarm" themselves.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 6, 2010 17:21 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

"loser pays" is not a particularly good system.

And while it can be unjust, I think our (the UK) system is better. Sometimes the winner ends up paying :-)

If the defendant offers to settle, and the plaintiff both (a) rejects the settlement, and (b) gets less at trial, then costs are AUTOMATICALLY awarded against the plaintiff! I think there's a bit of judicial leeway, but not much.

That way, especially in a troll case, if the defendant offers to settle for less than the plaintiff has already spent, it becomes a huge gamble for the plaintiff - swallow a loss or gamble on winning big with a massive downside if you don't ...

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Posted Oct 8, 2010 10:46 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

'the solution to which is not "Throw out the entire system!"'

Yes it is. The whole patent system cannot produce anything to prove it's usefulness in promotion of scientific development and innovation. It can't even prove its usefulness in providing inventors with compensation for their efforts.

It is, as a whole, a huge waste of money and resources, a weapon for corporate warfare whose only winner is lawyers, it's in effect a lawyers tax of 20% on every technology.

Patent systems are hurting the industry and economy big time. We, the world, the nations, the companies, cannot afford to maintain such a wealth-destroying, economy-crippling and innovation-stiffling machine.

Well, that is the economic reality. Of course, the media-generated virtual reality wildly differs from facts, and the politic reality follows thusly making it just about impossible to throw out the rent-seeking profiteers and actually ditch such a system. So, in that sense, any actual and feasible solutions are bound to be patchwork onto the existing patent system, but calling these a "solution" for the problem is like calling a duct-tape on the leak in the Titanic a "solution" -- it's still sinking, only marginally slower.