tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post3467532416838504188..comments2024-03-26T13:13:25.033-04:00Comments on Written Description: Allison, Lemley & Walker: Repeat Patent LitigantsLisa Larrimore Ouellettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-62317055138327673142011-03-21T13:22:43.096-04:002011-03-21T13:22:43.096-04:00Thanks for your questions, Dale! For more on softw...Thanks for your questions, Dale! For more on software patents, you might look at pp. 707-09 of the article (linked above). The authors note that even though software patents are "taking disproportionate resources in patent litigation . . . . [i]t is less clear what conclusions we should draw from this fact." They say that their results could be evidence of antisoftware bias, but whatever the reason courts are invalidating software patents, "[s]ociety is spending a large chunk of its patent law resources dealing with what are—for whatever reason—the weakest cases. And patent plaintiffs are pursuing those cases despite the overwhelming odds against them." Although this "should give substantial ammunition to those who argue against software patents," "one could read this evidence as proof that the system is working," and "[t]he truth probably lies somewhere in between."<br /><br />Regarding your second question, the authors do not discuss the benefits of NPEs creating a secondary market for R&D because this paper is not an evaluation of the costs and benefits of NPEs—it is an empirical study of the most-litigated patents ("the very patents that economists consider the most valuable"), which finds that they are "astonishingly weak."Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-15765348069271264592011-03-21T11:10:18.659-04:002011-03-21T11:10:18.659-04:00With respect to software patents we know that ther...With respect to software patents we know that there are several problems. First the courts and the PTOs anti-software stance for years resulted in fewer patents filed in this area which hurts the quality of the patent prior art. Second, the anti-software bias may be clouding the judgment of juries and judges. Third, the failure of many areas of software to develop standardized terms has made it more difficult to examine software patents. Fourth, the PTO’s insistence that examiners of software patents have the same production quota as examiner’s in the mechanical arts has not provided these examiner’s sufficient time to review these cases. <br />Note that NPEs are the beginning of a secondary market for research and development that cannot be exploited by the inventor. This will result in more resources being devoted to invention. Since all per capita increases in wealth are the result of increases in our level of technology, this is a social good. Is this social good accounted for by the authors?Dale B. Hallinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647184662875078767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-85973147584342805912011-03-20T20:08:01.923-04:002011-03-20T20:08:01.923-04:00Thanks for the comment! Yes, I agree that lumping ...Thanks for the comment! Yes, I agree that lumping all NPEs together is problematic. Allison et al. have a table of "Entity Status Classes" on p. 684, and they note this issue: "Rather than take a position on what, if any, NPEs should be considered trolls, we classify each patent owner and let the reader decide. We do, however, report the results for practicing versus nonpracticing entities . . . . Notably, virtually all of the NPEs in our data set fall into Classes 1 (companies in the business of acquiring and asserting patents from others) and 5 (inventor-owned companies). So our data do not depend at all on things like whether universities, university spin-offs, or intellectual property (IP) subsidiaries count as patent trolls."Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.com