Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

Google is a massive company that often throws its weight to take patented technology without payment under the guise of fighting patent trolls.

Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial.

Patent cases can easily take decades to complete an span multiple jurisdictions, and google has been involved in several such cases, meaning the original patents are now quite outdated compared to modern technology despite their original applicability.

After ex google executive Michelle Lee became head of the US Patent Office, the PTO has been more favorable to patent infringement in my opinion.

Google has settled many patent cases over the years, surely some of them were valid patents.

> If you go to trial, it's some unsophisticated jurors who decide if the patent is valid. For a reexam, it's PTO people, who at least know what the law is.

Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury? The PTO reviewers are hardly more knowledgeable about technical fields than juries. Somehow 64% of reviews end up with changes, is this not a sign that the PTO has been all to regularly changing its mind about valid patents?

To be clear I have never been involved in any sort of litigation against google, patent related or otherwise. I just think the pendulum has swung too far against patents. I could have instead argued that Apple or other companies are also very oppressive against patents.

I do agree many software patents are not applicable and are often spam, but there are real costs to decreasing patent rights outside of software

This is called "begging the question": assuming what is in dispute and needs proving.

"Patented technology" assumes that the "invention" was indeed worthy of a patent. If you want to take some example patents whose claims were thrown out in IPR, I'll be happy to debate them with you.

> Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial.

Again, you are begging the question. I've actually watched a mock jury debate patent eligibility. Their assumption is that the PTO wouldn't have granted the patent if it weren't valid. I actually heard a member say about a piece of invalidating prior art (paraphrasing), "That's so obscure! It's not fair to expect the PTO to know about that!"

> The PTO reviewers are hardly more knowledgeable about technical fields than juries.

You can't be serious. Technical knowledge is not expected from a jury. PTO examiners are accustomed to doing this.

> Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury?

Not an unconditional right. A jury trial costs anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 a day. Demand for a jury trial by an NPE is basically extortion.

> Somehow 64% of reviews end up with changes, is this not a sign that the PTO has been all to regularly changing its mind about valid patents?

For the third time, "begging the question." Find some patents that were modified and we'll talk about them.

> Google has settled many patent cases over the years, surely some of them were valid patents.

Pretty weak reasoning. Settling is not an admission of guilt.

> I do agree many software patents are not applicable and are often spam, but there are real costs to decreasing patent rights outside of software.

At last you've hit on something reasonable: take software out of the patent field entirely, and we can make some good law.

You're a lawyer, whose job is reading shit, and you thought the protagonist was a man?

This is just stylistically razzing you. I am not this cynical and you are a qualified expert. The takeaway is that the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people. There has to be major change.

No, actually. A patent agent.

> the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people.

"highly educated" doesn't mean what you'd like it to. But yes, there should be major changes, starting with making software ineligible for the one-size-fits-all patent system.