Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Oct 2013 11:25 UTC

So, there's a new patent reform bill in the US that is supposed to put an end to "patent trolls".

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), has introduced a bill [PDF] that directly attacks the business model of "patent trolls." The bill has a real chance at passing, with wide backing from leadership in both parties.

Don't believe all the cheers online - this bill is a disaster. What it essentially does is make it very hard for smaller companies to file patent lawsuits. While this does, indeed, make it harder for small patent trolls to operate, it has the side effect of shifting the balance of power even more in favour of the larger companies. Additional costs and legal legwork are a huge hindrance for small companies, but entirely inconsequential for large companies which employ the same patent trolling tactics as actual patent trolls, such as Apple's software and design patent abuse or Microsoft's mafia practices regarding Android.

With this bill, it will become a lot harder for a small, innovative startup with a great idea to protect itself against the big players. I would call that an unintended side effect, were it not that I am a huge cynic and know perfectly fine that this is anything but 'unintended'.

Permalink for comment 575501
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

My point was that Samsung is not the patent abuser. Apple is.

Your doing a horrible job. Moreover, part of your point was to denigrate the misinformed, but you appear to be the most misinformed reader in this entire discussion.

Thats why, both a jury and the ITC concluded that Apple was using reverse patent holdup.

No, this did not occur.

Yes, the jury in the Apple v. Samsung case in the Northern District of California did not uphold Apple's antitrust claims regarding FRAND abuse, but they also did not find Apple guilty of infringing the patents WHATSOEVER. So how does Apple having its affirmative defenses invalidated in that case, prove to you that Apple is guilty of patent holdup if they were found to not infringe any patents? Also, I thought the jury was horrible wrong? No?

So what you are doing is cherrypicking the most trivial of all details from the Apple v. Samsung case and the ITC Presidential veto, completely muddling what is actual fact, and distorting your own muddled mess according to your own delusions.

Yes, the ITC, after multiple initial rulings in Apple's favor, finally found Apple guilty of infringement. And their enforcement action was overruled. None of which indicates that Apple is a patent abuser. Merely that Apple has not made a FRAND payment for SEP payments. And that the ITC (a quasi-judicial organ of the executive branch of government, which seeks to protect or expand its powers as any organ of government is likely to do) is completely out of step with their boss, the President, and the entire judicial branch of the US government.

Its shameful that the ban was removed for Apple "cuz of consumers and the market and all" but not for Samsung. If the merits of the case don't matter, why not veto both bans.

This is unsubstantiated gibberish. Why is it shameful? Have you afforded for the differences in the two separate ITC cases (one being SEP patents, one not)? Or are you confusing the Northern District of California case and the ITC again and claiming the President should veto a jury verdict, even though that's not the law? No one has said the merits of the case do not matter. What has been stated (because it is true and easily comprehendible if you can read) is that the veto does not consider the factual or judicial merits of the case (because that is the law) but rather the competitive and economic implications resulting from the ITC ruling. What am I supposed to find shameful or unfortunate or unfair about that? Because you haven't remotely demonstrated that. Rather you've demonstrated your own personal ignorance and misunderstanding of what is reality.

Edited 2013-10-25 00:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2