Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:12:41 -0400

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 10:10 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> 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.

In courts the testimony does not decide anything, it is the judge that
decides how to evaluate the testimony.

> 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.

You are just raiding the bar a bit making patent enforcement more
costly, I do not see why, if the Patent Office can produce bad patents,
a third body can't produce bad results as well.
The Patent Office should already be this third party you describe.

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

You added one, the third party you described has the power to decide to
give a judgment on the validity of the patent!

If I understood something in the wrong way please describe where I got
it wrong.

Simo.