Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:59:22 -0700

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

Which makes my point that I have not created a private
judiciary.  Thanks.

I have proposed to require certain testimony for the
plaintiff must be collected in advance of any demand
or action.  I've proposed  liabilities for
doing a bad job in generating that testimony.

I have also given third parties a financial interest in
helping an innocent third party of limited means
overturn a bogus patent -- by imposing the liability
of the costs of doing so on the plaintiff wielding
a bogus patent.

> 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.
>
>   

The patent office should be no such thing.  It is a registry -- nothing
more or less.   It is not a judiciary.   It is not an advocate for or 
against
any patent it registers.   It's job is to make sure that the language of a
patent follows the expected syntactic and semantic requirements and
that the claims are not *obviously* bogus.

>> You added [a private judiciary], 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.
>>
>>     


No, the third party isn't deciding anything.   The third party is
providing expert testimony, suitable for use in a court case
against specific defendants.   The proposal says, in part, that
if you haven't already collected that evidence against the
defendants in question, you have no business even sending them
a demand.

The liability parts of what I propose give incentive to get
*good* expert testimony.

-t