On a patent practitioner email list I posted the following:
It seems to me that many small/medium companies live in fear of a big patent lawsuit. Even if they had their own IP, I suspect many companies would gladly give up forever their right to sue for patent infringement, in exchange for some kind of immunity from patent liability–at least, if they could eliminate the threat of an injunction, so that the worst penalty they might face is some kind of mandatory royalty. Surely IBM et al. would not take this deal, but I bet a lot of other companies would. What do you think?Second, in view of this, does this mean there is some kind of market for a service that would let a bunch of companies get together and “pool” their IP and have some kind of agreement (a) never to sue each other; (b) to have access to this pool of patents to countersue any company that sues any of the members.
This post drew some interest so I am doing a simple webpoll. I think the results might be interesting. (DIGG it here.)
In Seen and Unseen Costs of Patents, Jeff Tucker notes, “Intel’s CEO spoke for many when he said he would be glad to cut patents to a tenth of its current rate provided that others did the same.”
{ 8 comments }
It would be interesting to know how many people who will answer yes to the question have a patent or have a patent pending.
Not sure. I can tell you my company has dozens pending and over 30 patents issues and I would gladly recommend this deal.
Don’t the big pharmas operate under a similar “gentlemen’s agreement” already?
Sione
Mr. Kinsella highlights an important point. There is no real way to “opt-out” of the patent system through voluntary contracts because such agreements are usually found to be illegal restraint of trade and prohibited by antitrust law. On the other hand, the fashion industry attempted to create an “opt-in” system to protect new fashion designs through voluntary contracts, and this was also found (by the Supreme Court) to violate antitrust law. So there is no choice.
Where would “trade secrets”, “proprietary information” fit in this discussion.
I know that many of my friends file for “process-wide” patents and hold the specifics in house.
With the idea that they are not divulging: “the whole of the answer”.
I would think that there is a difference between “patents”(IP) and “trade secrets”/”Prop. info”. In re: this discussion, is there? would you think so?
>Where would “trade secrets”, “proprietary information” fit in this discussion.< Well, I don't think they are the type of threat that patents are. So I see no special need for some special defensive measures.
>I know that many of my friends file for “process-wide” patents and hold the specifics in house. With the idea that they are not divulging: “the whole of the answer”.< I have no idea what a "process-wide" patent is, but what your friends are doing is explicitly prohibited and means their patents are invalid because of fraud on the patent office: there is an affirmative duty for patent applicants to disclose what they consider to be the "best mode" of the invention; this is the idea behind the patent grant: the state grants you a monopoly, *in exchange for* your disclosure of an enabling description including your best mode. Those idiot inventors who hold back the best mode and file the patent without it are getting patents worth nothing.
>I would think that there is a difference between “patents”(IP) and “trade secrets”/”Prop. info”. In re: this discussion, is there? would you think so?< This is too elementary to answer here. There are lots of sources online. Try mine at http://www.KinsellaLaw.com/ip
Stephan,
Right you are. I had it backward, they were *not* filing process patents, but individual component patents. The assembly of which, to animate the process, they hold “in house” as “trade secrets”, “proprietary information”.
Also, I found your website well organized, and straight-forward.
Gracias!~
If I owned a company I would take this deal in a minute. To me patents are an absurd and unecessary waste of time/energy.
Comments on this entry are closed.