IV must have really liked that Tupac hologram at Coachella:
“The firm Intellectual Ventures ( http://www.intven.com ) is a well-known licensor, developer, and aggregator of patents in a variety of fields. From time to time, they solicit ideas from top-notch inventors. I have been asked to spread the word that IV released a Request for Invention (“RFI”) pertaining to holographic 3-D display, capture, and processing.
The boundaries of what IV means by “holographic” is explained in their RFI; essentially, there is a bias towards systems that employ diffraction. However, interesting high-quality non-diffractive autostereo displays are also being considered.”
The criticisms of the BU Study are appropriate but even with those criticisms, Patentology concludes (appropriately):
“And we agree wholeheartedly with a number of their conclusions. For example, their suggestion that policy reform should address troll-like behaviour rather than merely status as an NPE is, in our view, spot on the money. Trollism is presently a unique feature of the US system, and there are a number of reasons why this might be so which Besson and Meurer identify:
- too many patent claims of indeterminate scope, especially in the more ‘abstract’ fields, such as business methods and some types of computer-implemented inventions;
- disproportionate awards of damages, making trolling a potentially highly profitable venture; and
- reduced financial risk associated with assertion of questionable patents, due to inadequate use of fee-shifting, i.e. whereas in other jurisdictions (including Australia) courts will normally order the losing party to pay the winning party’s costs, this is the exception rather than the rule in the US.”
“What’s improper, Detkin warns, is inferring based on this subset of patent activity onto NPEs as a whole. “They take that point and then say ‘therefore, all patent assertion by non-practicing entities is bad.’ And that’s like saying all personal injury litigation is bad.” Are there people who game the personal injury system? Sure, says Detkin. “But that doesn’t mean we should eliminate the entire personal injury system because, on balance, we think it serves a purpose.”
But, here’s the real question, where is the line drawn between the bad actors and the good actors? And, are the bad actors increasing in number and effect? One can’t look at the dramatic growth in NPE’s and not be troubled.
Qualcomm is creating a new subsidiary to prevent inadvertent licensing of its patent portfolio through its development activities and apparent use of open source software:
“However, the company expects that QTI and its subsidiaries’ product and services businesses will increase their work with open source software in the future and this restructuring will, among other things, help ensure that QTI and its subsidiaries’ activities do not result in the licensing of any of Qualcomm Incorporated’s patents, including its 3G and 4G patents.”
It’s a difficult business business model to be suing potential customers (and trying to avoid unintentional patent licensing) while seeking to work with them on technology projects. Just ask Rambus Inc.
Behind every patent troll there’s a greedy lawyer.
Especially in those suites in the same buildings in the following Texas cities: Tyler, Frisco, and Marshall.
Hearing that menacing voice of Stacy Keach saying that proverb would be fun, especially as he drags out “gggrrreeeedddyyyyy.”
IV has a network of 3,000 inventors? It would be interesting to see all of the conflicting IP Rights Assignment Agreements there are with all the members of that network.
“Akzo Nobel N.V. (AkzoNobel) and Intellectual Ventures (IV®) announced today that they have entered into a joint collaboration agreement to develop new technologies for the paint and coatings industry.
The collaboration provides AkzoNobel with access to technologies from IV’s portfolio of chemistry and materials science inventions. Under the terms of the agreement, IV will work with its network of more than 3,000 inventors – including individual inventors and inventors from government labs, research institutions, corporations and universities – to invent new technologies that can then be used by AkzoNobel to enhance its competitive position. AkzoNobel may select technologies for further development and testing, potentially leading to commercialization in new and existing products.”
This week was the annual IP Business Congress in Portugal:
Of course, IV was there (14 members!), and this should be comforting to practicing entities in Europe:
“This year’s speaking topics highlight the fact that IP has become a front-page story over the past year and I will be on a panel discussing this trend in the European Union. Historically, in Europe, IP is seen as the end point of the R&D process, but we believe there is untapped potential in intellectual property assets. The patent market is relatively new in the EU and as such Intellectual Ventures can play a role in helping companies realize this previously unrecognized value.”