Europe: A Patent Troll Paradise?

International companies are concerned about Europe's casual attitude toward patent trolls. Companies such as Samsung and Apple see Europe has a paradise for patent trolls. Both of these companies complain that these patent trolls cause serious problems that continue to plague innovators. An open letter has been sent to European policy makers signed by very notable international companies claiming that the patent trolling in Europe has been escalating. These companies furthermore say that there must be a unified patent system so that standards will be similar across different nations.

It is an interesting debate about how to resolve patent issues across specific nations. Many nations don't have an as expansive patent troll litigation culture which makes them more favorable in patent related trial cases. There are concerns that there would be easier grounds on which to litigate on and this would create more litigation.

From: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/growing-industry-coalition-urges-eu.html

Government and Patent Trolls

In this remarkably pragmatic article, the author is urging that the Senate pass legislation to prevent patent trolling. He cites the main reason for doing so as an impediment to innovation. Last year, the House was able to pass legislation that would require patent trolls to offer more details about the significance of their lawsuits as well as fee -shifting measures, which allow for recuperation of fees should a party win a frivolous lawsuit. Provisions like these would definitely reduce the power of patent trolls, who thrive on low-quality, expansive patents to strong-arm companies into complying with their settlements.

The Obama Administration has put patent trolling legislation as one of its top priorities in order to encourage innovation and reduce the impact that patent trolls have in our economy. A glaring statistic from the article that stood out to me was that $29 billion dollars in legal fees were spent on defending companies against patent trolls. Patent trolling has also been targeting smaller and mid-sized companies, many of which don't have the resources necessary to fight these trolls. Many of these companies decide to settle rather than declare bankruptcy as means to protect themselves and their business. However, this is the sort of action that should be stopped if a bill is signed into law. As the article stated, many of the patents that are being used include online shopping carts on e-commerce websites, WiFi technology in establishments, and shipment tracking technology. The Innovation Act, as the bill is being called, is coming at a much needed time. There is bipartisanship against patent trolling and we need to reduce the power as a society against these leeches who simply litigate and prevent companies from reaching their full potential
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/senate-needs-to-stop-patent-trolls_b_4696466.html

Patent Trolls "Trolling"?

Patent Trolls Trolling?

In November of 2013, a Kentucky Senate voted that "to establish a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement as a violation of Kentucky's consumer protection chapter and authorize the utilization of the remedies available for those violations in addition to private remedies established in the bill." Let me back up a bit to give you some context. A subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance showed that patent trolls used deceptive demand letters. There are many factors that go into deciding whether or not something actually constitutes bad-faith when discussing patent trolling. The laundry list is spelled out and gives a structure as to whether someone can claim patent trolling was in bad-faith. However, patent law is a federal issue, not a state one. Hopefully, there is legislation at the Federal level that mirrors the concerns of the Kentucky state legislature so that demand letters in bad faith will no longer be tolerated.
From: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/kentucky-senate-committee-approves.html

Patents Cases vs. Copyright Cases

Patent Courts vs. Copyright Courts

It is difficult at times to decipher the meaning behind all of the terms that are associated with patent law. Terms such as trademarks, copyrights, patents, and others are thrown together into similar articles making it quite tough to decipher what exactly are the nuances within the terms. In an article about different IP lawsuits it was reported in the last 4 months of 2012, there were 2,000 patent cases vs. 1,000 copyright cases and 1,000 trademark cases. That number is staggering, but through a comparison of these different cases, there are some pieces of information we can gleam about IP litigation. A lot of this comes back to the idea of location.

In areas where patent law is very popular, the other two types of cases are not. Patent litigation is also more concentrated in fewer areas than the other two - notably areas that we have discussed about including the Eastern District of Texas. This goes back to the fact that different appellate courts in a sense see almost exclusively patent cases or trademark/copyright cases. The lack of coordination of different IP systems within the US is staggering and it may very well be the reason why there are concentrations of courts that specialize in certain kinds of cases.

From: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/disjunction-litigation-copyright.html

Eastern District of Texas

Google & Motorola

Google & Motorola: Was it Meant to Be?

As I previously stated in my last blog post, Google purchased Motorola for $12.5 billion dollars in August of 2011. However, in January of 2014, Google decided to sell Motorola to Lenovo for $2.9 billion dollars. This prompted many individuals to discuss the financial acumen of Google for selling the company for a sum almost $10 billion dollars less than what it originally acquired it for. However, when we look at a breakdown of how Google sold the company, we can see that the company's deal wasn't all that bad. In fact, it allowed Google to remain competitive in the mobile technology market against its competitors. Google sold the set-top division of Motorola for $2.4 billion dollars, acquired the $3 billion dollars on Motorola's balance sheet, and the remaining amount was part of the intellectual property folder that Motorola accumulated.

The sale of Motorola to Lenovo is seen as a success by Google due to the large amount of patents acquired by the software giant. Instead of focusing on purely the financials, Google set itself up for success against the other major players in the mobile technology space. Many speculate that this was Google's primary reason for acquiring the company in the first place. Google claims that the patent portfolio of Motorola is arguably better than that of Nortel's, which Apple and Microsoft bought. The value of the Nortel's patents was around $4.5 billion dollars. Google, on the other hand, given all the sales of individual Motorola units, netted the patent portfolio of Motorola's for a cheaper price after adjusting. While it remains to be seen on how Google will leverage it's newly acquired patents, it can definitively be said that this will make for a very complex, but equal patent war between the major software giants.

Google & Motorola: A Match in Heaven

Google, a stalwart since it first was established, bought Motorola in August of 2011. The acquisition cost Google a cool $12.5 billion dollars and allowed Google to have access to all of Motorola's strengths - including its mobile technology, its patents, and a wide variety of other proprietary technology. This deal for Google was a right one as it strengthened its mobile technology, which is seen as competition to the technology of other tech stalwarts, Apple and Microsoft. In addition to buffering their own operating system and mobile technology, the purchase gave Google the rights to all of Motorola's  intellectual property, one that rivals the acquisition that companies Apple and Microsoft did for Nortel's patents.

Many people argue that the reason for buying Motorola was to retain the expansive intellectual property patents that had been acquired by Motorola through the years. This gave Google significant power in the patent war against Microsoft and Apple, companies who have also been arming themselves in the wake of impending patent war litigation. The estimated amount of patents that Motorola had acquired was close to around 17,000, which fairs nicely in comparison to the amount that Apple and Microsoft acquired through the Nortel deal. Although this deal seems to put Google in good standing, there are also tensions that emerged as a result of this with Samsung. This is due to the fact that Samsung, a company which employs Google's OS saw the acquisition of Motorola as a competitor to themselves.

Smartphone Patent War

IEOR 190G - Introduction

The patent war over smartphones is a battle that has engaged the likes of companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft. However, as the media decides to focus primarily on these companies at the forefront of this patent war, many smaller companies, which hold an important place, don't get the same kind of recognition. One of these lesser known companies in this patent brawl is Nortel, a Canadian-based telecom company, that went bankrupt in 2009, but sold $4.5 billion dollars in patents to a group of companies - Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Ericsson, & Sony (all of these companies operated under the name "Rockstar Bidco"). The reason for buying this incredible amount of patents was to take on Google and its operating system, Android. The patents that were bought relate to search, advertisements, internet protocols, and graphical interfaces for navigational purposes.

The concept of patent privateering emerged from this concept of larger companies handing off patents to smaller companies that would pursue litigation for patent infringement against their competitors. Larger companies despise this practice because larger companies work in sort of collusion with smaller companies in order to come down on their competitors. This tactic is novel because it allows the smaller companies to do the "dirty work" and engage competitors in lengthy and expensive trials. In the case discussed, Rockstar is an independent company that allows companies like Microsoft and Apple to engage in patent litigation through a sort of "proxy".
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/

Patent War - An Alternative to Litigation?

In a world with increasingly sophisticated technology, the smartphone patent war is something that is at the heart of the changing technology landscape. There are multibillion dollar corporations that are suing each other for multiple patent rights in different states and even sometimes in different countries. This includes the famous Samsung vs. Apple, but that is just the most notable one. There are many companies with similar claims that they own patents and that Company X or Company Y, has infringed upon those rights. In addition, companies are purchasing patents in the order of billions of dollars to protect themselves and earn potential money through the litigation process. This has led to a rise in litigation in corporate America, one flushed with the money of a patent war that doesn't ever seem to be ending.

Although this patent war has generally pinned companies against each other, there are times where patents have been conducive to multiple parties. Samsung and Google, in a laudable fashion, decided to "cross-license some existing and future patents", saying that the move would reduce the amount of litigation between the companies and instead drive the focus toward innovation. This form of engagement between companies is incredible especially during a time of intense patent dispute. Focusing on the technology rather than who owns it is good for everybody and will hopefully start a movement of collaboration and maybe even patent-sharing. Though these large multibillion dollar companies can always lay claim to intellectual property infringement, it is optimistic to me when they put aside their differences and work to improve technology and by extension life for consumers of both their products.
http://www.economywatch.com/news/samsung-google-patents-agreement.27-01.html