Patent Reform: Boring but Important

by Sam on January 14, 2008

 

startup patents patent reform blackberry rimm

 

Patent reform is an under-discussed topic among bloggers and entrepreneurs, likely because it is so complex, esoteric and costly. According to some VCs, patent defense is so improbable that they consider patents the most “overvalued assets” trumpeted by startups seeking funding.

While most people understand the need for reform stemming from patent trolls, less well understood are the other issues embedded in the proposed new legislation reforms. In this weekend’s New York Times, John Markoff does a decent job of covering some of these controversies…

“Passed by the House of Representatives with relatively little debate, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 faces a bruising Senate fight this year. As it now stands, the bill would shift the balance of power in the legal quarrels between patent holders and possible infringers by significantly limiting damage awards

Under the proposed law, what are known as the “Georgia-Pacific factors,â€� a set of 15 guidelines that courts now use for determining damages in patent cases, would be boiled down to a single concept of “apportionment.â€� Damage calculations would be based on an economic analysis to ensure that a royalty damage award captures only the economic value attributable to the patent’s specific contribution over previous inventions.â€�

In response to the above, Mark A. Lemley says it best, “I can’t think of a straight-faced argument that you as a patent owner are entitled to more than your invention has contributed to a product.â€� Totally agree.

In summary, the main issues covered in the proposed legislation:

– Making the US code more similar to other countries
- First to file versus Original Inventor (Not covered in the article)
- Stopping patent trolls who profit on damages while contributing/advancing nothing
- Recognizing entrepreneurs do not have deep enough pockets to go into litigation
- Limiting damage amounts (willful infringement)

Still, one of the biggest issues for entrepreneurs in web-tech is one not addressed in the reform: what can be patented? For example, ridiculously broad patents have been handed down in recent years to companies such as Blackboard and Friendster, covering architectures such as social networking and streaming media. Brad Feld, a well know VC blogger, goes as far as to say “all software patents should be eliminated.” Not sure I agree totally with Brad, but I’m not well informed enough to really have an opinion.

Though the Times article leaves out a few germane issues, on the whole, it’s a worthwhile read and deserves to be talked about more.

Update: Though I beat them to the story, Techcrunch is chiming in :)

  • Morales
    I am not convinced at all the Patent Reform Act will bring a plus the way it has been drafted. How can someone be assured that you will find reasonable people on both sides of the equation agree on the patent damages to reflect an accurate valuation of how much value the invention patented has contributed to a commercialized technology? Let’s take a simple example: the braking system of a car. A car cost lets say between $10,000 and $100,000. First question: would you purchase a car without brakes? Between two cars would you favor a car that claim it has a better brakes against the one that does not? Would you agree to say that what appears to be a small component of a final product can or will make the difference in your decision to buy or not to buy? Would you agree to calculate the value of the royalties based on a different value basis that the cost of the brakes if this patented brakes make you buy this car? Some will say for instance that the ABS braking system is considered as the major decision factor before to purchase a car. Is anyone can recognize here that one single invention can be the valuable selling point for a product? Therefore the patent owner of the ABS braking system may lose big if the patent reform act passes. America has been the cornerstone of innovation, larges companies that have been harsh critics of the current patent law are very powerful anyway, and do you really want them to be even more powerful that they are now? For the same reason you don’t withdraw such good show as CBSnews "60 minutes” from the air, it will be a huge mistake to penalize the UNITED STATES by incorporating a deficient patent system to our economy. Remember when Experts and Politicians were saying how “good” was the Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) between Mexico and the US that if it passes it will be good to our economy. Don't listen always to the one that complain but rather support those that will create tomorrow's innovations, our Inventors.
  • @Morales Thanks for the your solid insights.

    No legislation is going to be perfect, but reform is definitely needed...maybe a small component is not the make or break at point of purchase but it's also the principle of protection. Failure to protect even the little guy results potentially in stifled innovation
  • Wayne
    I disagree about software patents being eliminated. I think that all patents should be eliminated. KSR vs Teleflex is a great argument for my stand.

    No I know that a lot of people will say the problem is patent quality, not patents, but coming up with a reasonable definition for what defines a quality patent is impossible. At least that's my view.
  • @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.
blog comments powered by Disqus