SHARE



ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Dave Michels
Dave Michels is a Principal Analyst at TalkingPointz. His unique perspective on unified communications comes from a career involving telecommunications...
Read Full Bio >>
SHARE



Dave Michels | June 24, 2013 |

 
   

Patent Changes Pending

Patent Changes Pending Patent reform will go slowly, but it is necessary.

Patent reform will go slowly, but it is necessary.

Patents are designed to encourage innovation. At least that's a common theory, but the result isn't always so clear. The premise goes that the innovator gets about 20 years of exclusive rights to the innovation in exchange for its public disclosure. It was Alexander Graham Bell's patent of the telephone that not only led to the Bell System empire, but an entirely new, innovative industry.

Increasingly the patent system is considered a barrier to innovation. As Time reports: "In 2011, Apple and Google spent more money on patent litigation and defensive patent acquisitions than on research and development." When patent litigation overshadows actual innovation, we have a problem. It's a problem that continues to grow; typically there had been about 3,000 patent infringement suits filed each year, but that number has been climbing, to about 4,500 in 2012.

Infringement lawsuits are becoming so lucrative that a new breed of firm exists for the sole purpose of acquiring patents, and then filing infringement claims. These firms are not-so-affectionately known as patent trolls and they are proliferating across industries. Last February, in a Google Hangout, President Obama said of patent trolls, "they're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them."

Patent trolls accounted for 40% of intellectual property lawsuits in 2012, according to a study by Robin Feldman of the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. The patent trolls aren't just suing big firms either. The state of Vermont filed a suit against MPHJ Technology Investments for unfair and deceptive practices against Vermont businesses of all sizes. MPHJ had been using more than 40 shell companies to threaten infringement suits in Vermont--the technology in question: Scanning and emailing documents, something that, although it is a common practice, could be construed as the patented intellectual property of MPHJ.

(Editor's note: This post originally misstated the status of the Vermont suit.)

Upon receiving a demand letter threatening a lawsuit, most companies perform a quick cost-benefit analysis that compares the cost of litigation to the cost of settling or licensing. Even when confident of no wrongdoing, it may be more cost-effective to simply agree to licensing. That's what trolls want.

Earlier this month, the White House took action to improve the situation by issuing five executive orders and suggested regulatory changes. The White House wants to make life harder for trolls, but the regulatory changes are where the juice is at.

The executive orders are a good start and have already taken effect. The measures are intended to increase the burden on those claiming infringement, and to make such claims more transparent (instead of using shell companies). The White House wants Congress to legislate that patent case penalties include total legal fees be paid by the non-prevailing party.

The crux of the problem really isn't trolls. Innovators should be allowed to sell their patents as one means of monetization. Specialized licensing firms, known as non practicing entities (NPEs), should be allowed to buy them. The problem is that the line between a respectable NPE and a troll is a hard one to draw. It's a challenge to separate them legally, but fighting "trolls" has become one of those rare bipartisan agendas.

The bigger opportunity has to do with vague, broad, or trivial patents that create a cloud of ambiguity that clogs the courts. The White House is asking the Patent and Trademark Office to keep patents narrow and specific. Patents carry a lot of weight, but don't undergo an exhaustive review process. The Patent Office is a national monopoly and its review process generally only includes information from the applicant's side. Several have proposed a more formal post-grant review process as a more balanced/adversarial approach to test validity. The current post-grant review process is very complex.

Patent reform will go slowly, but it is necessary. Last March the US changed its patent approach to align with the rest of world to recognize "first to file" instead of "first to invent." That change alone is expected to significantly reduce patent lawsuits.

Dave Michels is a Contributing Editor and analyst at TalkingPointz

Follow Dave Michels on Twitter and Google+!
@DaveMichels
Dave Michels on Google+





COMMENTS



Enterprise Connect Orlando 2017
March 27-30 | Orlando, FL
Connect with the Entire Enterprise Communications & Collaboration Ecosystem


Stay Up-to-Date: Hear industry visionaries in Keynotes and General Sessions delivering the latest insight on UC, mobility, collaboration and cloud

Grow Your Network: Connect with the largest gathering of enterprise IT and business leaders and influencers

Learn From Industry Leaders: Attend a full range of Conference Sessions, Free Programs and Special Events

Evaluate All Your Options: Engage with 190+ of the leading equipment, software and service providers

Have Fun! Mingle with sponsors, exhibitors, attendees, guest speakers and industry players during evening receptions

Special Offer - Save $200 Off Advance Rates

Register now with code NOJITTEREB to save $200 Off Advance Rates or get a FREE Expo Pass!

February 22, 2017
Sick of video call technology that make participants look like they're in the witness protection program? Turns out youre not alone. Poor-quality video solutions can give users an unprofessional
February 7, 2017
Securing voice communications used to be very simple since it was generally a closed system. However, with unified communications (UC) you no longer have the walled protection offered by a dedicated v
January 11, 2017
As cloud communications continues to grow and mature, many enterprises are looking to build a hybrid CPE-cloud strategy. Looking out over the next three years, how should enterprises expect the cloud
February 17, 2017
From the most basics of basics to the hidden gotchas, UC consultant Melissa Swartz helps demystify the complex world of SIP trunking.
February 7, 2017
UC&C consultant Kevin Kieller, a partner at enableUC, shares pointers for making the right architectural choices for your Skype for Business deployment.
February 1, 2017
Elka Popova, a Frost & Sullivan program director, shares a status report on the UCaaS market today and offers her perspective on what large enterprises need before committing to UC in the cloud.
January 26, 2017
Andrew Davis, co-founder of Wainhouse Research and chair of the Video track at Enterprise Connect 2017, sorts through the myriad cloud video service options and shares how to tell if your choice is en....
January 23, 2017
Sheila McGee-Smith, Contact Center/Customer Experience track chair for Enterprise Connect 2017, tells us what we need to know about the role cloud software is playing in contact centers today.