Earlier quoted context omitted.
> company B should get MAJOR financial rewards from BOTH company A and the patent office, on the order of 10x+ what they spent on their defence By "the patent office" you mean taxpayers, right? Because we're the ones who foot the bill for any judgement against the government. I can't see any situation where individual patent clerks would be held accountable. First, it goes against established case law regarding civil…
> By "the patent office" you mean taxpayers, right? Because we're the ones who foot the bill for any judgement against the government. I think they meant the patent office should cover that from fees, not from taxpayers.
In a city near me the taxpayers recently rejected a tax increase to pay for a bond because they were grumpy that the government took out the bond without asking them first. The city was still on the hook for the bond, so they just siphoned money from the roads fund.
The same thing would happen here—you can say that the judgment must come from fees, but then the patent office will have to either raise fees to crazy levels in order to cover the risk (thus making patents even more of a large company advantage) or they'll siphon money from things that were being covered by fees and use taxpayer dollars to cover those things.