Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:10:25 -0700
Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:10:25 -0700
simo wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 09:17 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> [...]
>   
>> Seventh, we encourage a competitive market of
>> these third parties.  If X's patent is first reinforced
>> by their third party, Y may seek the help of
>> competing third parties who will make a compelling
>> case to the contrary.   If Y successfully challenges
>> the findings in court, or if X withdraws the findings,
>> X must pay for all of Y's experts and pay an additional
>> fine to Y.
>>     
> [...]
>
> Do you realize that you have created a private judiciary system?
> Do you understand why in democracies the judiciary system is not private
> and is not a *business* ?
>
> Simo.
>
>
>   

Not at all.   Expert testimony is already essential to any
serious patent proceeding.   No court case charging
infringement will go forward without it.   I've simply
said that the expert testimony must be collected *before*
taking enforcement action.

I do that to eliminate people using patent *threats* to
cause problems even when they don't expect to send
any time actually testing their patents in court.   Those
threats are all too effective.

I haven't *created* a private judiciary system.  I've
*killed one off*.

-t





simo wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 09:17 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
[...]
  
Seventh, we encourage a competitive market of
these third parties.  If X's patent is first reinforced
by their third party, Y may seek the help of
competing third parties who will make a compelling
case to the contrary.   If Y successfully challenges
the findings in court, or if X withdraws the findings,
X must pay for all of Y's experts and pay an additional
fine to Y.
    
[...]

Do you realize that you have created a private judiciary system?
Do you understand why in democracies the judiciary system is not private
and is not a *business* ?

Simo.


  

Not at all.   Expert testimony is already essential to any
serious patent proceeding.   No court case charging
infringement will go forward without it.   I've simply
said that the expert testimony must be collected *before*
taking enforcement action.

I do that to eliminate people using patent *threats* to
cause problems even when they don't expect to send
any time actually testing their patents in court.   Those
threats are all too effective.

I haven't *created* a private judiciary system.  I've
*killed one off*.

-t