Blame the Trolls? #14

When thinking about reforming the Patent system, it is easy to target Non Practicing Entities, or trolls as the scapegoat. No matter how good of a case they have for participating in the patent eco system, it is hard to sympathies with their cause given that they are not contributing to the innovation revolution that we as consumers are thriving for. The latest example of the attempt to punish trolls can be seen with the SHEILD act, (the piece of legislation I talk about in my previous post) that would make trolls pay for legal fees of both parties if they lose the lawsuit. This SHIELD act, however, sweeps in and disrupts instances like mergers, acquisitions, and corporate financing. Some argue that the problem with "SHIELDing" against trolls alone does not get at the fundamental issues with the patent system. Rather, curing the patent system requires general solutions, not just targeted ones on patent trolls. Suggestions include: more patents should be rejected, damages should be limited and controlled, and litigation should be more efficient. The argument here is that the patent system has many more ills than are produced by NPEs alone. Therefore, patent solutions should focus on patents and practices rather than isolated perpetrators like trolls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NP9mhFflU

Legislation that Hurts Non Practicing Entities #13

A piece of legislation is being considered on Capitol Hill that would limit the number of times a year a "non-practicing entity" can sue a tech company such as Google and Apple. This legislation was introduced by Oregon Democrat, Representative Peter DeFazio, which is aimed at hurting "patent trolls" by allowing judges to force such firms to pay the legal fees of companies they unsuccessfully sue. Mark Chandler, general counsel for Cisco Systems, testified saying that Cisco supports this legislation given the $50 million a year they spend on fighting lawsuits fighting companies that do not make or sell anything. However, several lawmakers were worried at the prospect of non-practicing entities needing to pay the legal bills if they lose infringement lawsuits. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, stated that they "have a measure before us that the plaintiff pays and the defendant who might be an alleged patent infringer pays nothing. This is disturbing." Non-practicing entities sued 5,570 defendants in 2011, which is twice as many as in 2009. Unlike previous years when these patent lawsuits focused on manufacturers, retailers, restaurants and other companies, these patent lawsuits are now including department stores like JC Penny that are forced to settle instead of fronting the cost of the legal fees. Forced to defend patents that cover drop-down menus of websites, gift card activating technologies, and mobile phone web browsing, patent litigation now accounts for about half of the total legal fees JC Pennny has to pay. They are now reluctant to buy any technologies from small companies that are incapable of defending infringement lawsuits. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22792482/anti-patent-troll-bill-faces-questions-capitol-hill?source=rss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G2ZWBbhHSc