Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:35:19 -0400

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 10:59 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> 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 was describing the existing system, your system mandates that these
testimonies are paid before hand by the company that held the patent.
If I understood correctly your third party must attest the validity of
the patent and a number of other things.

My understanding is that this party therefore judges the validity of a
patent.

> 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.

It is not much clear how this would really help, you have to do that
anyway once you get into courts.
The side effect is that if you have a clearly valid patent but little
money you may end up not being able to sue a big company that infringe
it.
You effectively raise the cost of the patent this way, because patents
will not have any value without the assessment they are valid, so you
will end up being forced to pay immediately such study when the PTO
releases you a patent so that the market can give this patent a value.

> 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.

How? You are requiring the patent holder to provide such evidence first,
and then in court Y can provide it's own experts, nothing different than
what we have now.

The only proposal that have some value, and that have already been
proposed by many, is that the patent holder should pay all the legal
costs of the defender if the holder loose the lawsuit.
This will effectively help little players because if the patent is
really bogus you can easily find a legal firm that will defend you
because the legal firm will be reassured that they will be paid.

> > 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.

All right, you should probably read about what are the duties of a
patent office and how a patents are released.
And perhaps you will then be able to make some decent proposal based on
how things works (or should work) in reality.
This may be a good point where to start for the USPTO:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

I can give you pointers for what the EPO is supposed to do when you are
done with this.

Simo.