2 ms·

2. I think generally if you want to use your patent you call people and offer them the use of your technology (there must be some standard business practices fo

2. I think generally if you want to use your patent you call people and offer them the use of your technology (there must be some standard business practices for this). Then at least you can be reasonable that you claim they stole it from you. Doing nothing until someone else figures out the same thing and then saying they owe you is just unreasonable. I don't know the specifics of this case but that's how I'd classify a patent troll vs someone who did their best to improve the world with an invention.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
And that's how licensing usually worked, whether you were a practicing entity or not. Lawsuits typically only happened if negotiations broke down, because they are expensive and/or risky for both sides. This may or may not have happened in this case, as TFA does not mention it. However, licensing is risky these days. The Medimmune v Genentech decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedImmune,_Inc._v._Genentech,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedImmune,_Inc._v._Genentech,_I...) significantly changed the calculus of licensing negotiations. Essentially, it enabled potential and current licensees to preemptively sue the licensor for "Declaratory Judgment". This is bad for licensors because 1) any tentative approach for licensing can blow up in their face, and 2) if it does, the licensor will have to expend considerable resources fighting a lawsuit they didn't want, 3) in a venue that then becomes wherever the DJ is filed, which may be unfavorable to the licensor for many reasons, such as not being EDTexas. Ok, I was just picking on EDTexas (Delaware is just as common), but the venue matters for many reasons, including the state of the docket, local laws and the primary political leanings (and other biases) of the judges and jury pool. As a simplified example, you don't want to sue an automotive company in Detroit. Forum-shopping is something that should not exist, but is an unfortunate reality of the current system. My personal belief is we should do away with jury trials entirely for patent cases.

throwawaykf05 12y ago

And that's how licensing usually worked, whether you were a practicing entity or not. Lawsuits typically only happened if negotiations broke down, because they are expensive and/or risky for both sides. This may or may not have happened in this case, as TFA does not mention it. However, licensing is risky these days. The Medimmune v Genentech decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedImmune,_Inc._v._Genentech,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedImmune,_Inc._v._Genentech,_I...) significantly changed the calculus of licensing negotiations. Essentially, it enabled potential and current licensees to preemptively sue the licensor for "Declaratory Judgment". This is bad for licensors because 1) any tentative approach for licensing can blow up in their face, and 2) if it does, the licensor will have to expend considerable resources fighting a lawsuit they didn't want, 3) in a venue that then becomes wherever the DJ is filed, which may be unfavorable to the licensor for many reasons, such as not being EDTexas. Ok, I was just picking on EDTexas (Delaware is just as common), but the venue matters for many reasons, including the state of the docket, local laws and the primary political leanings (and other biases) of the judges and jury pool. As a simplified example, you don't want to sue an automotive company in Detroit. Forum-shopping is something that should not exist, but is an unfortunate reality of the current system. My personal belief is we should do away with jury trials entirely for patent cases.