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 575584
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

So some jury rulings are ok and some aren't? Who gets to make that decision?

You're reading comprehension is horrible. Wasn't that your initial point? Neither myself or Nelson are saying this -- however, we can only logically conclude you are.

You are claiming that in Apple v. Samsung in the Northern District of California Apple was found responsible for holding up it's lawful obligation to pay for Samsung's patents based on the fact that the jury rejected its affirmative antitrust/FRAND defenses. But the same jury found that Apple did not violate the patents in question at all. So how is Apple abusing patents by not licensing their use if they were found to not infringe them at all?

As for the ITC, the letter from the USTR specifically states that the reversal was in no way a judgement based on what the ITC found or its logic. So that doesn't really say anything about the merits of Samsung's claims does it?

Correct, the veto does not say anything whatsoever about the merits of the final ITC ruling, merely that their judgment would be inappropriate to impose. And?

Edited 2013-10-25 16:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3