tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7785271463347317998..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: French sovereign patent fund shows muscle: FB spearheads patent litigation in GermanyVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47028215449487559842013-08-15T11:37:00.238+01:002013-08-15T11:37:00.238+01:00One could argue that patent trolls articles attrac...One could argue that patent trolls articles attract regular on-line trolls.<br /><br />I must say that I am struggling to see the "offense to critical thinking" when reading an anonymous comment with such arguments. I guess the NPE topic is still provoking very animated debates. <br /><br />Regarding the "myths", I do not see anything referring to a "use requirement" in the fourth paragraph. Furthermore, I do not quote Professor Mark Lemley and I believe in patent as property rights (who does not?). <br />Bertrand Sautierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422163613215633083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68684990571055727352013-08-12T17:13:45.235+01:002013-08-12T17:13:45.235+01:00In response to Anonymous of 10:15, Lemley is a not...In response to Anonymous of 10:15, Lemley is a <b>notorious</b> commentator and NOT an expert on all patent matters. His anti-patent leanings are well known to those in the patent world, and to blindly accept his views 'because he is Lemley and says so' is an offense to critical thinking everywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11236486952143827742013-08-12T10:15:25.800+01:002013-08-12T10:15:25.800+01:00In response to Anonymous of 15:48:00, Lemley is a ...In response to Anonymous of 15:48:00, Lemley is a highly regarded commentator and expert on patent matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47573115694096094652013-08-11T15:48:45.440+01:002013-08-11T15:48:45.440+01:00Anonymous at 11:11,
The Reuters article has the e...Anonymous at 11:11,<br /><br />The Reuters article has the earmarks of an article written by someone who does not understand patent law.<br /><br />Particularly in regards to U.S. jurisprudence, there is no "use" requirement, as the fourth paragraph of the article incorrectly implies. <br /><br />Further, the article ignores the fact that patents by law are property, and protecting alienability of property has always been a critical element of government. <br /><br />Further yet, the myth of litigation spiralling out of control is just that: a myth.<br /><br />Further, the article takes as given the unproven assertion that patent trolls only deal with 'bad patents' that stifle innovation. <br /><br />I suggest that Lemley is not a source to be trusted, and a jaundiced eye must be used whenever he is quoted.<br /><br />Finally, I suggest the series of articles on Patent Trolls that debunk such unwarranted myths:<br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/29/a-fractured-fairy-tale-separating-fact-fiction-on-patent-trolls/<br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/probing-10-patent-troll-myths-a-factured-fairytale-part-2/<br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/31/a-factured-fairytale-part-3-more-patent-troll-myths/<br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/01/a-factured-fairytale-part-4-more-patent-troll-myths/<br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/02/patent-troll-epilogue-a-fractured-fairy-tale-part-5/<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91482570602342360182013-08-11T11:11:48.519+01:002013-08-11T11:11:48.519+01:00There does seem to be a lot of concern out there w...There does seem to be a lot of concern out there with the concept of a government backed patent entity. South Korea have one, and China and Japan are thinking of forming them too. They are being referred to as patent trolls and Congressman Peter DeFazio has referred to their activities as as 'protectionism'. (see http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/20/us-patents-nations-insight-idUSBRE92J07B20130320)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72392825925218937962013-08-09T15:47:38.711+01:002013-08-09T15:47:38.711+01:00As a French resident and taxpayer, I applaud every...As a French resident and taxpayer, I applaud every initiative of the French government to maximise its revenue without drawing it from my pocket...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69237195816567570052013-08-09T12:55:52.756+01:002013-08-09T12:55:52.756+01:00Suleman at 15:09,
You say in your post "in r...Suleman at 15:09,<br /><br />You say in your post "in response to...," but I cannot see how your post responds to my post, as you do not discuss or even acknowledge the point that I made.<br /><br />Rather, it appears that you use the line to segue into a different point that you want to make.<br /><br />To this new point, I would say that to focus on the particular owner of any patent (or portfolio of patents) is very much still a red herring. A patent can only cover that which it covers. No more and no less. Who owns a patent simply does not factor into what that patent rightly covers. It matters not if the asserting entity is state-funded or not.<br /><br />It appears that you sub silento are assuming that the asserting entity is <i>wrongly</i> asserting patents. This again should not matter as to the party asserting the patent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41315139385405019742013-08-07T15:09:08.810+01:002013-08-07T15:09:08.810+01:00In response to Anonymous of Wednesday, 7 August 20...In response to Anonymous of Wednesday, 7 August 2013 12:04:00 BST and Bertrand Sautier, FB have already gone beyond the remit of solving the problem of 'fragmentation of the market' mentioned in the article. They've build portfolios from diverse sources which they are now prepared to use offensively, rather than defensively, in litigation. I imagine that they are in a pretty powerful position when they negotiate and they never have to worry about being infringers. Tied to the fact that they are state-funded, I would say this is a worrying situation. I would ask do we want such (potentially large) organisations to develop and be part of the research and patent ecosystem?Sulemanhttp://www.hollyip.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38925732050366153782013-08-07T14:28:41.583+01:002013-08-07T14:28:41.583+01:00Suleman: I believe that comparing FB to a patent t...Suleman: I believe that comparing FB to a patent troll does not reflect the reality. The main critic against trolls is that they take litigious patents and try to get the most revenues from it in a short amount of time, using litigation threat. This is not the way FB works.<br />Bertrand Sautierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422163613215633083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64782200383498345642013-08-07T12:04:32.140+01:002013-08-07T12:04:32.140+01:00Suleman at 11:00 states "and must be unfair&q...Suleman at 11:00 states "<i>and must be unfair</i>" and I have to wonder, why?<br /><br />On the contrary, patents (generally) being a negative right, and not a right to practice, and in addition I rather fancy that someone having the ability to break the large corporations' atomic bomb patent portfolio threat to competition is a feature and not a bug of the NPE phenomena.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16077208705163256712013-08-07T10:11:18.560+01:002013-08-07T10:11:18.560+01:00This sounds like a government funded patent pool n...This sounds like a government funded patent pool now deciding to become a patent troll. Any NPE has the advantage of not needing to negotiate for crosslicencing since they are not practicing the invention, and this distorts the marketplace and must be unfair. The present situation seems to represent anticompetitive behaviour.<br /><br />Also there are parallels with the first part of Mike Mireles' article in IP finance about universities acting as trolls (http://ipfinance.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/a-need-for-trademark-bullies-or-at.html) See also a related list of problems associated with commercialising university research (http://hollyip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/problems-of-patenting-and.html)Sulemanhttp://www.hollyip.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70399309022430904502013-08-07T07:39:53.026+01:002013-08-07T07:39:53.026+01:00Why Duesseldorf? The English would say: Bifurcatio...Why Duesseldorf? The English would say: Bifurcation. <br /><br />The Germans would not agree. They would say: Speed, value for money and a decision from a Panel of experienced judges that will be of such high quality and persuasive reasoning that every other jurisdiction will follow it.<br /><br />The Americans might say: Because nobody will believe for one minute that any decision of a court in France is impartial.<br /><br />I was once asked by a German client who would win if the issue were to be litigated in England. He had won in Germany against his French competitor. However, his competitor had won in France. He wanted to know which of them would win in neutral England.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29792596069624691932013-08-06T21:17:56.348+01:002013-08-06T21:17:56.348+01:00A French form of BTG then?A French form of BTG then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com