« Patent Litigation Weekly: Upstairs, Downstairs in Marshall | Main | Patent Litigation Weekly: The Lone Star Edition »

May 06, 2009



Did they ever address how the treble damages from willful infringement cause us non-lawyers to get advised at work that we should NEVER look at patents?

Because that pretty much neuters any remaining hope of public notice. Even if the patents weren't so absurdly vague, they're even more worthless when you can get into three times as much trouble just for knowing about them.

Even if your lawyer can't really be sure whether you actually infringe upon that patent.

Doug Park

Was that a direct quote from Judge Giles? Maybe he believed in the notice power of notices many years ago, but does he still believe that now? The Lemley/Cotropia research on inadvertent infringers suggests that Judge Giles' belief is outdated. The explosion of innovation increases the likelihood tht multiple parties are working on, and have developed, similar discoveries. In this context, the phenomenon of inadvertent infringers can be better understood.


Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay”.

This meeting was nothing but a pity party for big companies who time and again lag behind smaller innovative companies. The only thing the FTC knows about patents is they don’t have any. They should stick to their knitting and leave patents to others more knowledgeable. If they had, we wouldn’t be in this “too big to fail” mess with government bail outs. Whatever happened to anti trust? Is anybody at the FTC awake?

The comments to this entry are closed.