End of the Road for U.S. BlackBerry Users ? 446
_termx23 writes "US BlackBerry users may have to find an alternative source for their email addiction after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington rejected a request by Research in Motion to rehear its appeal of a patent infringement case brought by NTP, which holds a portfolio of wireless email-related patents violated by RIM." From the article: "As part of that litigation, NTP, whose only assets are wireless e-mail related patents, had been granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders. While the court declined Research in Motion's request for a complete rehearing by all 12 of its judges, it did order the panel of three judges to review some aspects of NTP's patent claims." We've discussed this previously.
Racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
It has got to be apparent that this business model has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with piracy and racketeering.
Re:Racketeering (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think, however, that all such IP claims, based on nothing, should be thrown out when someone else produces a viable product first. The idea is to protect innovation, not to protect a group of idiots sitting around in a room, patenting anything that flies out of their mouths. The idea of a thing isn't worth crap compared to the massive NRE that goes into making it work in the real world.
I wish more of these pie-in-the-sky morons understood that. Patented the idea of wireless email? You've got to be kidding. It's like they looked at all technology that was blowing up 10 years ago, and said, "Let's put 'wireless' in front of that and patent it."
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, I'm an outsider - I live in the UK...
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, patents are still perfectly capable of being beneficial, and often are.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Interesting)
No, then tell that to Amazon, MS, ...
I guess Amazon doesn't have copyright _and_ a patent on their "one-click" "IP" crap. I guess you consider Microsoft's "Office XML" crap an "invention"? I guess you consider Amazon's "one-click" crap and "invention"?
Yes,
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, you couldn't patent a better way to do 3D graphic chipsets unless you could actually BUILD that chipset?
Effectively, you've narrowed the market down to a small cadre of companies.
I think this is a great example of "the little guy" being able to fight back against being crushed by the large corporations.
Steve
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
With today's technology a simulation could be used to the same effect. In the case of a 3D chipset, a Verilog model could be required.
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
Effectively, you've narrowed the market down to a small cadre of companies."
If a "little guy" wanted to patent some non-obvious chipset improvement he wouldn't have to build a shipping product, just a prototype of his improved part. A prototype could consist of a computer simulation or FPGA and cost very little, it wouldn't need to run at full speed.
I think we need to move back to a patent system where you actually have to implement what you are patenting. It's really sad that it has gotten to the point where it is less profitable to actually make a product then squat on ideas and ruin those that actaully do.
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Informative)
Requiring a proof-of-concept sounds good but for some things, it is either impossible, impractical, very expensive, takes too long to the point of being obsolete by the time the demo is ready, etc.
Since eMail is just text data and manipulating text data is done by software, this really boils down to software patents. Now, that was a dumb idea and this story is just one more example of why.
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
And how likely is it that someone without these resources is actually going to come up with an truly non-obvious and workable improvement on current designs? In addition, as noted in some other posts, a simulation or Verilog model would be acceptable. If you don't have that, or a very similar tool, you're likely not producing anything workable to begin with.
I don't think it's too much to ask for an inventor to at least produce detailed schematics from which the object of the patent can be created.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
(submitting blindly... /.'s "Preview" is all whack. Can we get a patent on forum Previews?)
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Distinguish productive patents from non-productive patents. A patent would be productive if you can show you are using it in a product, or if it is being infringed.
2) Make non-productive patents expire five years from filing. If you can't commercialize it in five years, it's either not viable or you have no intenion of it.
3) Charge an annual patent mainenance fee structured to make it possible to work on commercializing a small number of non-productive patents but expensive to hold a large number of them. For example charge 500 * 2^n per year, where n is the number of non-productive patents an entitiy holds. The small time inventor with a single idea pays $500 per year, which in most cases doesn't take food off his table. An IP company with ten non-productive patents would be paying a half million dollars on the off chance they will be able to catch somebody.
Naturally, this is just fantasy. Democracy in this country is to rotten for any laws to be passed for the public good, unless it makes good TV.
Little guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be a little easier to stomach if it were the "Little" guy fighting back and that the litigant actually DID something with their precious Patents. What we have here is a letter of the law thing- and a bunch of lawyers abusing it seriously to their and their client's best interests. It's not illegal- but it is immoral.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3)
The patent system isn't intended as some sort of charity for tinkerers with "ideas".
It's intended to encourage investment in new ideas, by providing a limited temporary monopoly to support such investment. If we're awarding patents for things that don't require a lot of time and resources to come up with, then the there's something wrong with the system.
Forget th
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now we have a system that is set up so that the little man can go in and effectively block production of a product forever. This is idiotic. Period.
Patents that are never implemented should either be invalid or they should lapse as soon as someone else implements it. I frankly have no sympathy; if you can't get it done, then get out of the way and let someone else do it. End of story. This "IP Hostage" crap has got to go.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
The first problem is the fact that your lawmakers allowed patents on business methods and software. The second one is that your PTO (and our european one too) doesn't review the patents for non-obviousness anymore. The PTO is also treated at a profit
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the US started to enact laws that enforce some forms of ethics and morals for the whole society, it seems like americans started to confuse a moral or ethical and lawful behavior.
Ethically, the only thing that can be said about them is that they're total scumbags. Legally, they are following the law.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
All laws enforce some form of ethics or morals for the whole society.
However, I think you have the cause and effect mixed up. We started thinking "if it's legal, it must be moral" and then the opposite, and then people started trying to use that.
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
To reinforce the point, RIM should also remove the government accounts.
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a stockholder (if it's publicly traded or not), I would be fuming if they kept the entire network running - wasting precious company money..
BTW, I can get email on my cellphone that is not a RIM device. Is that infringing on this vapor-company's patent too?
Re:Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people working in Congress like Blackberries a lot, and have made it known that they don't want this conflict to disrupt their service, or else. Doctors and so forth can't pass legislation to get what they want.
Karma's a bitch? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/28/good_tech
Be sure and follow some of the links at the bottom of the article.
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were a shareholder, i'd be scared if I had any part in removing the governement's accounts, when some of those governement officials will be the judges when my case hit the superior court...
If I were a judge with a Blackberry that stopped working that would illustrate to me how far removed from the public interest this kind of behaviour is. That's probably why the IP holder didn't demand shut-down government employees too.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Interesting)
-Nano.
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Informative)
May the Patent be with you... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Informative)
I'd be interested to see how Microsoft's involvement with the new Palm pda's is affected by this. I can see Blackberry and Microsoft and Palm all forming a coalition to sue NTP into oblivion, since presumably the palm treo and even the smart phones made by motorola and others violate some aspects of NTPs patents, which sound overly broad.
It's obvious the US patent system is broken. Maybe someone should form a mail-in campaign to our congressmen and senators to make this an issue. That's the way we're supposed to invoke change in this country right? Bitch at our politicians until they get tired of listen to us.
+5 Informative?!?? (Score:3, Informative)
What planet did you just get in from? Rambus [rambus.com] is still very much alive and well and licensing technology. I would say that they deserved an ignomius death for their bullshit tactics with JDEC, but wishing don't make it so...
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate world is a lot like ecosystem. If you allow these kind of companies exists, they will exist. If your legistlation allows these kind of companies sue companies and win, they will prevail.
NTP == Lawyers; Court of Appeals == Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
BWJones: It has got to be apparent that this business model has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with piracy and racketeering.
SatanicPuppy: The idea is to protect innovation, not to protect a group of idiots sitting around in a room, patenting anything that flies out of their mouths. The idea of a thing isn't worth crap compared to the massive NRE that goes into making it work in the real world.
mikkom: Corporate world is a lot like ecosystem. If you allow these kind of companies exists, they will exist. If your legistlation allows these kind of companies sue companies and win, they will prevail.
Youse guys' problem is that you are thinking as engineers - as though laws were written by engineers for the benefit of engineers.
But laws aren't written by engineers: Laws are written by lawyers ["legislators"] and interpreted by lawyers ["jurists"] for the benefit of lawyers [e.g. paperwork fictions like "corporations"].
"NTP" is a front for a bunch of lawyers. The Court of Appeals is a front for a bunch of lawyers. You do the math: Lawyers win, engineers lose.
TSG isn't a good example (Score:4, Interesting)
The SCO Group has several products, and they haven't officially canceled all of them yet. They're not immune to a patent-based counterattack because they don't have any products, they're immune because they don't have enough customers or money. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, especially not after the turnip farmers have already juiced it while laughing at you.
Re:Racketeering (Score:2)
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
The best defense is to get out ahead and stay ahead, and when Micro$oft or some other known abuser of small companies comes looking for a "joint development" or "partnership" deal, tell them to get lost. Don't give up your IP, ever, to anyone, for any reason. Big companies are really a colony organism of small companies. Probably the guys that
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Informative)
Colt owned a patent on the external cam locking cylinder for a revolver. This locking cylinder assured the shooter that the chamber was properly aligned with
Re:Racketeering (Score:2)
Does this happen outside software? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Racketeering (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Racketeering (Score:3, Insightful)
Accessing your email on the road via your handheld is no different from accessing your email via dialup on a laptop (or luggable suitcase-sized computer). There is nothing innovative nor original about losing the wires or shrinking the the comput
Re:Racketeering (Score:2)
That was old SCO. Not the company currently known as SCO which was Caldera (The failed Linux distributor)
What if..? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly what has NTP done with these patents? The USPTO keeps striking them down (see here [msn.com]). Did NTP actually use or license the patents to make a product? I can't think of any.
Of course, this was nearly all settled [brighthand.com] but seems to have fallen apart.
RIM vs NTP is a complicated case.. many patent cases are. But when it boils down to it, the approach doesn't not appear to be consistent between different cases. If the judgement remains, then RIM's revenues will take a huge hit, US Blackberry users will not be able to use their devices and I can't see any product on a comparable quality anywhere on the horizon.
Re:What if..? (Score:2)
One could argue that in the interests of Blackberry owners NTP should be required to acquire and operate the service.
Re:What if..? (Score:2)
No - you see - if anything, you pay damages, and get to license it. Now, in all likelihood, their licensing will be outright extortion - after all, that is and always has been their sole business plan.
Alternatives (Score:2)
Well, there is GoodLink [goodlink.com], which is debatably better, but also more expensive. No word on whether THEY also violate the same patents, but since they only provide software and don't actually make or sell devices, you never know... It was my understanding that the patent violation was in how the device worked. Then again, if Blackberry's all suddenly "Don't work" GoodLink sud
Re:Alternatives (Score:4, Funny)
Also, Good has already licensed the IP from NTP so no worries at this point on that.
Re:What if..? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is this: as manufacturing, and R&D, and services, move out of the US and into China, India,
Re:What if..? (Score:3, Informative)
Nice consipiracy theory. I not saying that it doesn't happen...we've all got our bias. But, without any evidence of a lack of impartiality in this case, your comment is just speculation. U.S. courts don't have any serious track record of pro-U.S. bias when it comes to this kind of stuff. For every case you can pull up in favor, I can easily counter with one against.
Trade deals (Score:3, Interesting)
That point is being debated, but in the end, the strongest part does get what they want.
Re:Trade deals (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if..? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what really, really whigs me out about this whole case.
Here, we have one company that has developed an innovative, unique, and popular device that sells well, thus stimulating the economy. There, we have one company that merely owns the "intellectual property", and has done NOTHING to develop it, and is now trying to use
Re:What if..? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that has any relevance. If NTP was Canadian, it would have a U.S. subsidiary to hold its U.S. IP rights. So, even in that situation, it would be a U.S. company. Although, I could be wrong in thinking it wisest for a foreign company to have a U.S. subsidiary for such a purpose. I'm in law, not bidness.
I recently read a case involving an alleged intentional business tort where one of th
What patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Darn! I was just about to get a promotion! (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, though, I think I'm in the wrong business. Instead of creating software and hardware, I should just come up with some really cool ideas and patent them. Eventually someone else will come up with the same idea and I can sue for $$$$.
Re:Darn! I was just about to get a promotion! (Score:3, Funny)
I have an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have an idea (Score:2, Funny)
Since the vast majority of Internet use is for pron, I recommend patenting heavy breathing.
Everybody is equal in front of "Justice" (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they are "more equal" than others... or somebody doesn't want to hurt them otherwise they could start thinking why the patent system is so stupid...
Re:Everybody is equal in front of "Justice" (Score:2)
Re:Everybody is equal in front of "Justice" (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the US Federal Government is immune to claims of patent infringement. As specified in 35 USC Ch. 28 Sec. 271 [house.gov]:
Re:Everybody is equal in front of "Justice" (Score:2)
I'm not making a dig, I just don't really understand what it is I'm missing about Blackberry. Or is it just anothe
Farce (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Farce (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's make these IP warehouses at least put on a good dog and pony show.
Re:Farce (Score:2)
Re:Farce (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to disagree with you, but I must.
A patent is a property right, and intellectual property right. I, a typical citizen, have a great idea. I patent it. Unfortunately, I have $20k in credit card debt and $450 in my checking account. So, while I have a great idea, I lack the means to produce that idea. What to do
Re:Farce (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's not the idea. The idea (at least as I see it) is that patents should be a shade more like trademarks - you should at least have to make an effort to commercialize the patent to be able to keep it. That would certainly include selling said patent - if you can't commercialize, sell it to someone who can.
The question is, what's the point of the patent system? In a healthy environment, patents stimulate innovation by providing a system of reward for the person who puts in the research and development, so they get to recoup investment and get a reward for their risk. The point is not to *stifle* innovation by allowing people to squat on patents so they can stop companies from implementing an idea.
So we need a way to stop the bad without the good. I think a requirement to demonstrate attempted commercialization would work. That would eliminate IP holding companies - they'd have to establish R&D departments or sell.
Finally something people will notice (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us hope so anyway.....
While the USA Sues Itself Out Of Existence (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA will fall behind because ever more intellectual property will be locked up behind a multitude of corporations and individuals effectively ruled by lawyers who are more interested in earning legal fees rather than bothering to actually manufacture anything.
Other Governments and Europe's bureaucracies will not hesitate to forcibly acquire the necessary intellectual property needed get things done for large projects. That's how the European airline industry managed to get the Concord, Euro-fighter and even the latest Airbus built.
Other countries and even Europe's parliament will also not hesitate to adopt more liberal intellectual property structures if you demonstrate [wiki.ffii.de] that doing so will better benefit their economies as a whole, instead of just a few major corporations.
The USA administration and even more myopic major corporations will continue to let more and more manufacturing and service industry be off-shored resulting in importing permanent poverty into the USA.
You want to see the future of the USA? Visit the remnants of Detroit motor city works and despair [google.com].
Re:While the USA Sues Itself Out Of Existence (Score:2)
Opps, I forgot "ye Mighty [google.com]" in the last linked google search.
Nothing beside remains.
Round the decay that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Re:While the USA Sues Itself Out Of Existence (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget about Shelley. Try Orwell instead. You want to see the future of the world? Imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever.
This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC has seen fit to take a mostly hands-off approach to IP networks, but there seems to be no sense of the common good at the USPTO. Perhaps that is what we need. This is not unlike the patent issue about navigating a menu on mobile devices problem that Apple ran into.... OMG, its just stupid, and the devil in the details of trying to remain legal about things is killing us. The USPTO needs to simply say, oh, ooops, mea culpa, sorry. and then the courts can send all the life sucking lawyers home again.
Next big patents... (Score:3, Funny)
Wireless FTP
Wireless NNTP (AKA Wireless Pron)
Wireless Telnet
Wireless IRC
Wireless Web!
Of course, to use any of that, you need to license my wireless DNS patent unless you want to be tying IP addresses all day! Muhahahahah
Re:Next big patents... (Score:2)
Wireless VoIP
Wireless Music Broadcast
Wireless Video
Thank you, God (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry. Monday morning and already three helpdesk tickets on goddamn PDAs. Apparently, they need, like, batteries, or power, or something and won't work without it?
Re:Thank you, God (Score:5, Funny)
Do you suppose there's a www.crossingguard.org where people post complaints like "Goddamn ignorant little kids, not being able to cross the road on their own"?
Re:Thank you, God (Score:2, Insightful)
Patent Reform (Score:2, Insightful)
Well This Just Sucks! (Score:3)
This just totally pisses me off. I'd like to wring the neck of each member of NTP (not to mention their smart-ass, scum-sucking lawyer) for pulling this BS.
Maybe there could be some way for us Blackberry owners to file some kind of class action lawsuit against NTP?
What's so unique or amazing about the patent? (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as the wireless network became digital and the devices accessing them powerful enough to do more, it is a logical progression that you would be able to access your digital media (emails, photos, etc) via that device, possibly via a gateway service.
However maybe there was something unique in their patent. Shame they NEVER MADE A DEVICE which used the patent. Patents should exist to protect the inventor whilst he/she/it sells their product utilising said patent. It should be for people to have ideas, patent, and wait for someone else to implement.
I think that patent lawsuits should be stopped on the first day after the judge asks "Did this patent ever result in the creation of a device that you wish to protect from the alleged infringers?".
Ideas are cheap. Doing them is where the work is.
If I were RIM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if I were RIM and a branch of the US government handed me down this ruling, I'd shut the whole system down in the US. I'm allowed to keep providing service to government account holders, but I can't keep my business account holders? No thanks. I'll just kill everything in the US until we get this straightened out. Up yours, government.
Re:If I were RIM... (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I don't like the current IP/patent system any more than you do, and I'm aware and concerned with the gripes that you've got against the U.S...I've got plenty myself. That said, I don't know the details of the case, so I won't comment on it validity.
What portion of RIM's income comes from the U.S.? Do you suppose that it's enough to put them out of business (hopefully not the case) if they can't continue providing service here? Do you think that (as others have mentioned) this may actually be a good thing because it's going to hit so many managers where it hurts, and possibly force a change?
Yes, our patent system is out of control (and no, you can't blame George for this one...it was heading down this path long before he arrived). I was appalled when my company held mandatory IP training for all the engineers recently, and we were told about how we should be sending more stuff in for evaluation, and keeping detailed notebooks, etc. (like we don't have design documents...DOH!). However, until the laws change, you can expect nearly all companies here to act that way, just to cover their own collective arses.
Except government? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how some government official with more time and money on his/her hands than they know what to do with keeps their Blackberry, when people who are genuinely busy and using the damned thing are going to get shut out in the cold.
Is the government excepted just so they don't have to look at it from a "who's getting hurt by this"? Arguably, the point of the patent is to protect the creator so they can bring the product to market and profit from their research - well, NTP wasn't didn't and wouldn't - and their use of the patent now and under these terms explicitly HURTS consumers and the world in general.
Incidentally - I'm rather against the "patent for patents sake". Patents have a place, but they are all too often abused. There need to be some rules about sitting on your ass when you know infringement is in the works, so you can let it get big and profitable before digging in. I know this RIM:NTP has been going on for a while, but they didn't pipe up until RIM was well underway.
Forgetting the patent stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should corporate America have to suffer but the government not?
When MCI went down the tubes, I bought stock, simply because I knew that too much of the Govt infrastructure, corporate America and the internet was dependent on their network, and that MCI weren't going to get turned off.
I can understand doing something to keep the company alive, but this just seems wrong. Why the double standard?
I see this as a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see this as a good thing (Score:3, Funny)
Change to patent law? (Score:4, Interesting)
Put another way, are there any valid reasons to allow companies to hold patents for devices that they have no intention of ever developing?
Lin Yutang quote (Score:4, Interesting)
When there are too many soldiers, there can be no peace.
When there are too many lawyers, there can be no justice.
Silver Linings (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we can rediscover the pleasure of being out of touch.
Maybe my time can be mine again.
Well to those sysadmins looking for a new home... (Score:3, Informative)
Granted though, given the nature of the suit against RIM... I don't see how Good would be able to stay out of it either.
Re:Well to those sysadmins looking for a new home. (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, Good has licensed the intellectual property from NTP so they should be OK.
Yet another reason gutless CEOs will jump to MS (Score:5, Interesting)
NOw they will see that they got their fingers burned, will recognise that this COULD NEVER happen to MS, so will play even safer next time.
It's pathetic.
I missed something.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
I guess I'm missing the "promotion" part here.
This is hardly the end of the road. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's highly unlikely that NTP wants to shut down RIM. There will almost certainly be a licensing deal.
Re:This is hardly the end of the road. (Score:3, Funny)
Why do you think NTP is so evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are people so against companies that buy patents from inventors? I agree that it 'feels' wrong somehow when such a shell company starts to litigate, but let's face it - it's not.
In these cases the inventor gets money for the patent, he could've also said 'no' and kept it. Instead, he has made a (hopefully) informed decision to sell his rights. The patent-buyers made the choice to invest. The choice for the inventor is: get money NOW, or maybe get more money later, if you can afford the lawyers and time.
Why do people consider this practice 'evil' while things like making money off trading stocks is considered perfectly legit? In the stock market you also buy a -share- of something you have no intellectual input in.
Incidentally: as far as I can tell, NTP is not the 'vulture' company but actually was founded by the actual inventor of the patents discussed here.
Patents Already Rejected? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolo
says that USPTO "has now issued preliminary rejections of the five NTP patents that RIM was found to have violated in the jury trial. The most recent of those patent office decisions came last week".
Maybe this is why the story isn't getting much news coverage; RIM will probably be OK.
Great Minds Think Alike? (Score:4, Insightful)
History is rife with examples of people coming up with revolutionary things at the same time, just because the pieces were all falling into place and multiple people went "aha!" at once.
Maybe I'm trying to inject too much common sense into a legal argument, but wouldn't this squash a lot of this IP-squatting, if the law were to accept the idea that multiple parties could independently come up with a novel idea, and the first to actually DO something with it (license it, produce it, or otherwise make use of the idea) would be given priority on the patent?
The nationalism of the whole thing bothers me as well. Just for the sake of argument, say we had a Canadian company patent the same idea in their system a week before a US patent was filed. Does anyone really believe the US courts would uphold a foreign patent over one of their own? I place bets the foreign one would be ignored as having been granted under different standards, much the way the FDA doesn't recognize other countries' drug approvals.
(Quite obviously, IANAL)
A sensible fix (Score:3, Insightful)
What IF the patent law said that in order to enforce a patent a patent holder must show that they are actively pursuing development of the inventions described in the patent they are holding. Otherwise the patent is not enforceable. Obviously it needs to be a lot more detailed that this simple statement, but it seems to me that requiring patent holders to do more than just sit on their assets waiting for an opportunity to litigate, would go a long way to fix the perception that pantents serve to protect corporate pirates, instead of true inventors.
Re: (Score:2)