//
archives

Mike Masnick

This tag is associated with 8 posts

Does The New Patent Licensing Regime Look Like The Old Patent Licensing Regime?

So, not that long ago, partially in reaction to the fascinating results of Walker Digital’s novel attempt to auction freedom to operate under its patents (as opposed to the patents themselves), I declared the dawning of a new era in patent licensing: Litigation is simply obsolete, and will most likely end up being reserved for … Continue reading

Google: The First Lemming Into The Nortel Patent Canyon

A patent cliff refers to a sudden, massive and potentially catastrophic series of patent expirations that negatively affects pharmaceutical companies.  A patent canyon, on the other hand, is something different, albeit similar (in geological terms) to a cliff (don’t bother googling it, I just made up), and it applies to the fabled Nortel portfolio. The … Continue reading

Rising Patent Application Abandonments

Over at PatentlyO, Dennis Crouch posted some updated statistics about patent allowances, which projects another record year of allowances.  In response to last year’s 200,000+ patent allowances, Techdirt‘s Mike Masnick claimed that the patent office was just rubber stamping applications: Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has made it clear that he wanted to US Patent and … Continue reading

What Is An Invention? The Google Doodle Patent As An Example

The recent uproar about the Google “Doodles” patent has again raised the question about what, exactly, is allowed to become a patented invention.  A fundamental misunderstanding is that inventors obtain patents for “ideas” or “concepts.” Mike Masnick falls into this trap, recently when discussing the aforementioned patent: Yes, the concept of Google Doodles is now … Continue reading

Innovation Is Either Bought Or Stolen

The patent system is under attack on several fronts, whether from large corporations lobbying to overturn 250 years of precedent, collectivists seeking to impose their IP values on us all, or members of the media intent on smearing the reputation of IP owners.  Of course, while the patent system serves inventors by securing exclusive rights, … Continue reading

Don’t Fear The Licensor — Infringement Validates Importance Of Patented Technology

Has one of Paul Allen’s former researchers defected?  Mike Masnick over at Techdirt directs us to comments from co-inventor Michael Naimark (of USP 6757682), claiming that he is “expressing concern about how much money is focused on litigation instead of innovation.” But what he is really saying might be more supportive of Paul Allen and … Continue reading

Is the smartest guy on the bench being “willfully ignorant”?

So immediately after publishing this entry about reasonableness of demanding nearly six figures for a non-exclusive license to a relatively simple (in today’s terms, at least) technology, I learned about recent comments by Chief Judge Randall Rader, who apparently referred to litigation (or at least a certain type of litigation) as “systematic blackmail.” (Source: Dr. … Continue reading

A Patently Obvious Reading of the Recent Examination Guidelines

“The USPTO Decides to Lower Obviousness Standards” proclaims Slashdot.  Yes, according to Slashdot these new guidelines (which actually went into effect in September, and thoroughly debated over at PatentlyO) “do away with” the old 2007 standards which said that predictable variations based on design incentives, and use of known techniques to improve similar devices.  Mike … Continue reading