The document discusses measures to combat patent trolls in the United States and Europe. It describes how patent trolls operate by acquiring vague patents and demanding licensing fees from companies. Several proposals have been made in the US to curb abusive patent lawsuits, including disclosure requirements, fee shifting, and patent examiner training. In Europe, there is debate around a unified patent system which some argue could spread patent trolls across the EU and allow quick injunctions. The document advocates for financial support for SMEs facing patent disputes.
PELTON PowerPoint: ABA Cyberspace Institute 2011-01-28erikpelton
"Trademark Strategies for 2012" Presentation to the American Bar Association's Cyberspace Institute in Austin Texas on January 28, 2011. The presentation explores recent changes to the practice of trademark law, and what the future might hold for trademark owners and attorneys who advise them.
The Reserve Clause and Employee Non-Compete Agreements - Will the Infamous Re...Every1's Guide Press
The major league baseball reserve clause was banned by the U.S. Congress in 1998. Since 2000, however, the employee non-compete agreement has spread to cover 30 million U.S. workers. It does not prevent an employee from leaving their job, but, like the reserve clause, it causes many workers to change their careers. This presentation summarizes the arguments for and against the non-compete, and its widening application, which a growing number of policy-makers, employees, and businesses are questioning.
PELTON PowerPoint: ABA Cyberspace Institute 2011-01-28erikpelton
"Trademark Strategies for 2012" Presentation to the American Bar Association's Cyberspace Institute in Austin Texas on January 28, 2011. The presentation explores recent changes to the practice of trademark law, and what the future might hold for trademark owners and attorneys who advise them.
The Reserve Clause and Employee Non-Compete Agreements - Will the Infamous Re...Every1's Guide Press
The major league baseball reserve clause was banned by the U.S. Congress in 1998. Since 2000, however, the employee non-compete agreement has spread to cover 30 million U.S. workers. It does not prevent an employee from leaving their job, but, like the reserve clause, it causes many workers to change their careers. This presentation summarizes the arguments for and against the non-compete, and its widening application, which a growing number of policy-makers, employees, and businesses are questioning.
Transforming Legal Profession To Legal Services (Legal Industry Analysis)Timothy LaBadie
Report on the "New Normal" and the changing nature and disruptive forces affecting the legal profession. Actionble advice for providers (attorneys and in-house counsel) and users (clients)of legal services.
What’s in a Name? Everything! Trademark and Copyright EssentialsJason Springer
Your company name, your slogan and the goodwill of your customers are critical to elevating your bottom line. This free seminar will show you how to protect, leverage and capitalize on these valuable assets, and provide useful tips on protecting and enforcing your rights as a business owner.
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
Domain names and cybersquatting as deadly threats to trade marks in nigeria (2)Joseph Onele
Although the process for registering domain names is a separate one from trademark registration, many countries have reached the conclusion that there is a strong need to take precautionary measures to prevent conflicts between trademarks and use of domain names. Nigeria has, with the recent passing of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act 2015 joined the moving train in adapting its trademarks protection framework to the exigent demands of participating in the network of computers on the World Wide Web. This paper examines the concept of trademark infringement, cybersquatting and the use of domain names, as well as considers the appropriateness of an action for trademark infringement or passing off in the event of a dispute arising from use of domain names.
Transforming Legal Profession To Legal Services (Legal Industry Analysis)Timothy LaBadie
Report on the "New Normal" and the changing nature and disruptive forces affecting the legal profession. Actionble advice for providers (attorneys and in-house counsel) and users (clients)of legal services.
What’s in a Name? Everything! Trademark and Copyright EssentialsJason Springer
Your company name, your slogan and the goodwill of your customers are critical to elevating your bottom line. This free seminar will show you how to protect, leverage and capitalize on these valuable assets, and provide useful tips on protecting and enforcing your rights as a business owner.
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
Domain names and cybersquatting as deadly threats to trade marks in nigeria (2)Joseph Onele
Although the process for registering domain names is a separate one from trademark registration, many countries have reached the conclusion that there is a strong need to take precautionary measures to prevent conflicts between trademarks and use of domain names. Nigeria has, with the recent passing of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act 2015 joined the moving train in adapting its trademarks protection framework to the exigent demands of participating in the network of computers on the World Wide Web. This paper examines the concept of trademark infringement, cybersquatting and the use of domain names, as well as considers the appropriateness of an action for trademark infringement or passing off in the event of a dispute arising from use of domain names.
I have failed to get a follow up contact since 20th of June at the Ahmedabad City Police by reporting and sending email reminders about the case. Are trying to use Ahmedabad City Police Facebook page to see if there is a response.
I have failed to get a follow up contact since 20th of June at the Ahmedabad City Police by reporting and sending email reminders about the case. Are trying to use Ahmedabad City Police Facebook page to see if there is a response.
Learning ObjectivesAfter studying this chapter, you should be ab.docxsmile790243
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the business tort of misappropriating a trade secret.
2. Describe how an invention can be patented under federal patent laws and the penalties for patent infringement.
3. List the items that can be copyrighted and describe the penalties of copyright infringement.
4. Define trademark and service mark and describe the penalties for trademark infringement.
5. Define cyber piracy and describe the penalties for engaging in cyber infringement of intellectual property rights.
Chapter Outline
1. Introduction to Intellectual Property and Cyber Piracy
2. Intellectual Property
3. Trade Secret
1. Ethics • Coca-Cola Employee Tries to Sell Trade Secrets to Pepsi-Cola
4. Patent
1. Case 7.1 • U.S. Supreme Court Case • Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
2. Contemporary Environment • Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
5. Copyright
1. Critical Legal Thinking Case • BMG Music v. Gonzalez
2. Case 7.2 • U.S. Supreme Court Case • Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Digital Law • Digital Millennium Copyright Act
6. Trademark
1. Case 7.3 • Intel Corporation v. Intelsys Software, LLC
2. Case 7.4 • V Secret Catalogue, Inc. and Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc. v. Moseley
3. Global Law • International Protection of Intellectual Property
“The Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution
Introduction to Intellectual Property and Cyber Piracy
The U.S. economy is based on the freedom of ownership of property. In addition to real estate and personal property, intellectual property rights have value to both businesses and individuals. This is particularly the case in the modern era of the Information Age, computers, and the Internet.
Federal law provides protections for intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Certain federal statutes provide for either civil damages or criminal penalties, or both, to be assessed against infringers of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Trade secrets form the basis of many successful businesses, and they are protected from misappropriation. State law imposes civil damages and criminal penalties against persons who misappropriate trade secrets.
“And he that invents a machine augments the power of a man and the well-being of mankind.”
Henry Ward Beecher
Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit—Business
This chapter discusses trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and trademarks and how to protect them from infringement, misappropriation, and cyber piracy.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual property is a term that describes property that is developed through an intellectual and creative process. Intellectual property falls into a category of property known as intangible rights, which are not tang ...
A Call to Patents: A look at the current state of patents held by social media and technological companies.
The intellectual property of social media businesses has seen a rise in the acquisition of patents. For such a fast growing industry, will this “arming” of corporate enterprises and the verdict of one monstrous case determine what could be a legal onslaught within the technological industry?
A crucial element of formulating a firm’s technological innovation strategy is determining whether and how to protect its technological innovation. Traditionally, economics and strategy have emphasized the importance of vigorously protecting an innovation in order to be the primary beneficiary of the innovation’s rewards, but the decision about whether and to what degree to protect an innovation is actually complex.
The purpose is to show you can find campaigns in the phase final countdown that has not passed to have at least two contributions in order to be searchable on Indiegogo after two days. I start with showing all campaign that was included this date. The total amount of campaign are 100. Later you see examples on campaigns that do not have at least contributions that Indiegogo claims is necessary in order to be searchable after two days. Sometimes when you click these direct links you get an ending like %20-%20/ Cut this away from the web address and it will work.
Due to climate change the ice-belt is melting. It will change the environment and open up for a new route for sea trade. The Arctic is a very fragile environment and I discuss the possibility to use a counterbalance fee based on the expected increased cargo ships that will enter and pass the Arctic Ocean. The fee will be used for measures to preservation of the environment and to implement clean tech in ports and at those cargo ships that frequently will use this route.
Large - scale infrastructure is a corner stone for a functioning modern society. Therefore, it is important for Europe to be successful in building infrastructure clever. It has a tradition of being costly to build, but also to generate large incomes. I lift forward the necessity to build infrastructure safe and competitive in new innovative ways both in Europe and abroad. Besides, it is a large contributor to the balance of trade between nations, between EU and others. In addition, it is still one of the largest sectors for job employment.
A global Digital Magna Carta that lays the foundation for everyone’s access to internet is beneficial for trade and social exchange. Since internet is very accessible to all, privacy concerns for people and companies is important to protect. However, there will be exemptions to privacy concerns when technology increases the user experience and make it easier to use internet. Other cases of exemptions will be when it greatly benefit the functioning of society and such examples includes the health sector and the rescue services.
The digital inequality in Europe and beyond needs to be broken. This can be achieved by having a universal treaty, a Digital Magna Carta, that lays the basic foundation for the goals that are to be achieved by all countries. However, not all countries has the same maturity level in ICT penetration. Therefore, to study other countries treaties with specific tasks outlined for how to become digital societies is important, both for EU and others. If we all shall enter the digital society upgrades of the ICT infrastructure will be built by the public and private sector and also by the contribution by people. When it concern purchases of personal technology we in EU has to buy this on our own, while in the developing world aid workers could disperse this technology to micro businesses. It is also important to educate people about the benefits of embracing the services a digital society provides which can be done by the public sector and in procurements from companies. Also include individuals who currently work at ICT companies that have an interest to work as spare-time workers. These have the benefit with knowledge about upcoming technology.
EU wishes to decrease its external energy dependency. The reason is that more control of our own energy usage enable more stable prices for you, me as well as for companies in EU. Three important measures to evaluate is Europe’s need to produce more of our own energy, buy energy clever from abroad and reduce our energy consumption to decrease our energy demand. In the centre of this paper a Control Price Mechanism is used that can help us achieve these goals.
A non – IP park is specialized on helping companies with focus on open source, open innovation and old innovations. To have one or a few non-IP parks in a country as a supplement to traditionally research intensive science- or technology parks will increase the likelihood for more successful companies.
From a commercial point of view old innovations are interesting as long as these are commercially successful, fill a demand and are not replaced by a newer. Old innovations are found in innovations who have a valid but old patent, re-innovated innovations, innovations that cannot not have IP-protection and everything in-between. There is a need for government and EU to enable matching of old innovations with companies in order to make these more competitive.
In order to achieve growth in society it is essential to have companies and innovators who successfully can commercialize their products and services. However, there are far too many inventions that do not manage to become commercialized. The paper present different ways for companies, innovators and investors to bridge this gap. Also EU has an important role to play when it concerns commercialization of innovations by embracing two different approaches to innovate. In the first approach an innovator or company innovate to meet a demand. In the other approach innovators first develop a product without a demand. The demand is created later and then become commercialized.
Different expansion options can be used in order to embrace countries that lay beyond EU borders. The use of infrastructure is a strategy that I advocate. The focus is on ICT infrastructure and virtual infrastructure. The ICT infrastructure can make countries become more interconnected and the virtual infrastructure could help EU prosper by offering other countries services that makes these more included into the EU-zone. Especially, trade and social exchange benefit by these infrastructures. It would be beneficial if there was a working group in EU that discuss how infrastructure can be used as a way to embrace other countries into the EU sphere.
Throughout history new infrastructures has been added to the existing infrastructures. By dividing infrastructure into different types I aim to highlight Europeans competitiveness in each of them. The infrastructures are bio-, nanoscale-, space-, virtual- and traditional infrastructures. Europe’s possibilities to be forerunners and create and have successful companies working in these infrastructures will be an important factor for our ability to prosper in society and to create new jobs. Infrastructure matters.
Nowadays, knowledge transfer cross-borders is increasingly easier to achieve due to the development of information technology with a focus on information sharing. This paper has its focus on Science e-Parks and crowd sourcing platforms. However, issues to consider when using these techs are to ensure that patents holds and that an open source agreement in Europe is applied the same elsewhere. The treaty (knowledge transfer) aims to ensure that European companies get the best knowledge transfer into our European R & D projects. It will help European companies enhance its competitiveness.
Nowadays, Science Parks can be complemented with Science e-Parks that provide crème de la crème knowledge to small as well as to large companies. The Science e-Parks decreases the expenditure for the SME, the large company and the University and at the same time provide access to top quality advice. In the future, it would be possible for EU to require that applicants for EU funding also sign up to a Science e-Park during their participation of their funded projects.
Abstract
Besides, national and international funding of infrastructure there are new options to build up the locally developed infrastructure. It can be achieved by three options. There is the traditional private-public partnership where the owner of the energy infrastructure is in private hands. The second - in return for visible exposure a company fund this infrastructure. The last option is to use crowd funding platforms where the contributors hold shares for future profit of surplus energy
1. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states
Part 14 – Patent trolls
Abstract
It is important to separate those who buy patent portfolios out of a strategic interest to add on protection to their
product portfolios and those who have as their business idea to buy patents, but have no products to offer in their
company. The latter often called patent trolls. President Obama has accused tech industry patent trolls of trying to
"hijack somebody's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them". In order to combat the misuse of
patents by especially patent trolls both new legal measurers has to be implemented and financial resources has to be
allocated.
Background
Helping geniuses! Our slogan sums up whom Somerco aims to help. Somerco are a company
that target to help researchers and innovators so that these geniuses can create prosperity and
jobs in society. This paper is an odyssey in the realities companies has to deal with when it
concerns patent trolls and the measures discussed and taken by governments to tackle these
problems.
Introduction
It is important to separate those who buy patent portfolios out of a strategic interest to add on
protection to their product portfolios and those who have as their business idea to buy patents,
but have no products to offer in their company.
The University of California's Prof Robin Feldman, one of the authors of a major study into
patent litigation has studied the latter group and she says: "The majority of patent lawsuits today
are filed by entities that don't make any products, in other words in your terminology by patent
trolls." "Their business model is based on extracting money from those who do make products."1
In US, patent trolls have become an increasing problem for all type companies – SMEs up to
companies in the size of Google.
"Our research has shown that in just five years the United States patent system has been turned on its head," says
Feldman.2
In Europe, patent trolls are not as common as in US even if they are active here as well. Many
patents are national but a fair share of patents is international. In pharmacy, software and
hardware much patents are international. Therefore, it is likely that not only European patent
trolls but also those from US will operate the same way here too in a near future.
Examples
In the first category, those who buy patents of strategic interest like the consortium Rockstar
Bidco who include Apple, Ericsson, RIM, Microsoft and Sony.
1
2
Patent trolls: Tracking down the litigious invention owners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23673383
Patent trolls: Tracking down the litigious invention owners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23673383
2. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
In 2011, when Canada-based telecom Nortel sold its biggest asset a portfolio of more than 6,000
patents covering 4G wireless innovations and a range of technologies. Google also bid for the
patents, but lost out to Rockstar against their bid for $4.5 billion.3
The second category are those who are earning money by licence fees that other companies has
to pay, which is in their legal right to do. The patent these patent trolls holds are sometimes
vaguely defined and give room for interpretation. This manoeuvre room is often used to ask
large companies and SMEs to pay a licence fee or face a potential lawsuit. Even if it is unclear if
the companies should pay a licence fee or settle the issue at all with the patent trolls it is a costly
procedure to hire IP-lawyers to check if there is any validity to their claims. The licence fee
patent trolls can be anything from $100 per employee and upwards.
An example on how patent trolls operate.
"There are a couple of different trolls who claim that they invented the technology behind wi-fi," […] " and they are
suing all kinds of companies, bars, hotels, restaurants. Anyone who offers wi-fi, they are saying you owe them
money."
And another extreme example concern scanning documents
"They claim that anyone who uses a scanner to scan documents, email the documents, owes them a royalty of
$1,000 [£645] per employee."[4]
There are plenty of examples like this that companies in US have to deal with. Most of the
examples on how patent trolls operate are more difficult to decide whether there are any legal
claims to ask for a licence fee or not. In these cases, the advice of patent attorney’s is necessary.
For all companies, claims for licence fees by patent trolls have become an unwelcome economic
burden. Company’s financial resources for expansion decreases and it becomes less resources to
R & D. Especially, for SMEs it can mean new recruitments have to be put on hold or some of its
new products have to be developed at a slower phase or put on hold.4
"Patent trolls are probably the single most common policy and legal problem our companies deal
with," said Nick Grossman of Union Square Ventures, a firm whose more famous bets include
investments in Twitter and Etsy. "Almost every time, it's a huge burden in terms of time and
costs, totally unrelated from the actual work of building start-ups. It's a constant drag on our
companies."5
Many times, if the companies do not dispute their claims and pay a licence fee or settle, suddenly
many new patent trolls emerge to ask them to pay other licence fees for other vaguely defined
patents.
Suggested measures
Patent trolls are in particular active in US. Large companies like Google who spends “tens of
millions” of dollars on a phalanx of in-house attorneys to defend itself against patent trolls,
3
Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned“Rockstar”sues Google. http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/
4
Patent trolls: Tracking down the litigious invention owners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23673383
5
Prominent VCs join the fight in Congress to stop patent trolls http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2013/11/prominent-vcs-join-the-fight-to-stop-patent-trolls-in-congress/
3. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
according to Tarrant has just as venture capitalists and SMEs put the problem on the political
agenda and several measures has been suggested by the US administration.6
President Obama has accused tech industry patent trolls of trying to "hijack somebody's idea and
see if they can extort some money out of them".
To tackle the problem he has called on Congress to introduce steps designed to discourage the
firms from suing. The measures include:
Requiring the parties who send demands to disclose who ultimately owns the patents, so
they cannot hide behind shell companies.
Make the demand letters public and searchable.
Make it easier for the courts to make the losing party pay for the winner's legal fees.
Offer better legal protection to purchasers of off-the-shelf products to safeguard them
against the risk of being sued for the manufacturer's patent infringement.
In addition the president announced steps he was taking that were within his powers. These
include:
The US Patent Office will require patent applicants and owners to provide updates on
who owns what if they come to the organisation with a dispute. The aim is to help
defendants know more about who they are facing and the connections that exist between
the various trolls.
Patent examiners are receiving extra training to try to minimise the risk of overly broad
claims being approved.7
From the senate
Two leading U.S. senators recently introduced a bill to make it harder for "patent trolls" to file
frivolous infringement lawsuits. That bill requires companies to provide specific details on what
patent is infringed when they file a lawsuit, and also to specify how it is used. It also requires
judges hearing patent cases to award fees to the winner in an infringement lawsuit, unless the
judge decides that the loser's position was "substantially justified" or some other circumstances
exist. The White House urged Congress in June to take steps to curb abusive patent lawsuits.
Other proposals are circulating on Capitol Hill, and the Federal Trade Commission is doing a
study of PAEs.8
From the House of Representatives
The SHIELD Act is a clever piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio and Rep.
Jason Chaffetz. The backronym stands for Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal
Disputes. Under the Act, if the patent troll loses in court because the patent is found to be invalid
or there is no infringement, then it pays the other side’s costs and legal fees, which often stretch
into the millions of dollars. This "fee shifting" system would empower innovators to fight back,
while discouraging trolls from threatening lawsuits to start.9
6
Patent trolls take on Vermont businesses. http://tinyurl.com/p4p4yoh AND Top Venture Capitalists Demand Real
Patent Reform, Put To Rest Myth That VCs Love Patents. http://tinyurl.com/q9tajzl
7
Patent trolls: Tracking down the litigious invention owners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23673383&
FACT SHEET: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues
8
U.S. Senate gets bill clamping down on 'patent trolls' http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-patentscongress-idUSBRE9AH19920131118
9
Patent trolls? http://www.ted.com/conversations/18940/patent_trolls.html
4. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
Europe
Reactions on a pan-European patent system
The creation of a pan-European patent system will help spread abusive patent litigation to
Europe and could lead to E.U.-wide sales bans on products, leading tech vendors have claimed.
Tech giants including Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Cisco, HP, Yahoo, Intel and
BlackBerry sent an open letter to European officials outlining their concerns about the formation
of a new unified patent court system in the E.U.10
The EU’s proposal would create a unified patent court, replacing the current patchwork quilt of
countries all with differing levels of experience handling patent-infringement claims. Another
problem is the new system would split the question of whether infringement occurred from
consideration of if the patent is even valid. While the procedure is common in German courts,
the division on questions opens up “significant opportunities for abuse.”
Others like IPNav has written that the proposed change in how Europe handles patent challenges
is “a great benefit to innovators” and the new setup “is going to cut the cost of litigation down
significantly.”11
How it will work in Europe
While the unified system has been heralded as simplifying the patchwork of rules that currently
exist across the single European market, vendors say it also brings the threat of a one-stop-shop
for quick region-wide sales bans. And allowing cases to be split up, with the validity of a patent
decided in one court while infringement issues are decided in another, can expose product
vendors to penalties even before the patent in question is declared sound, they claim. The unified
patent agreement allows the validity and the infringement questions to be decided in different
courts in the same case. Splitting those decisions into separate cases is known as bifurcation.
If this system was to be introduced for most of the European market, it could lead to quick E.U.wide injunctions, barring products from the European market, before any determination of
whether the patent in question is actually valid, the companies said.
In the case of bifurcation, the companies' argument is not good, said Willem Hoyng [cq], a
member of the Preparatory Committee, in an email.
Bifurcation can only do harm if, as in Germany, the invalidity court is slower than the
infringement court, Hoyng said. "It is clear from the Rules of proceedings that should not happen
in the new system," he added. And even if there are weak patents, they do not survive in a court
of law manned by good judges, Hoyng wrote.12
My comments
It is probably true that weak patents would not survive in court. However, for many SMEs it is
not the issue. It is the economic burden that might not be rewarded until a few years later that it
is the concern for SMEs, innovators, but also for large companies, universities and research
institutes. For some companies, it means they have to withhold investments in new R & D,
expansion plans and new recruitments.
10
Patent trolls will gain from a single European system, vendors warn.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2049520/patent-trolls-will-gain-from-a-single-european-system-vendors-warn.html
AND Daily report: Tech Industry Warns Europe of Concerns on Patent Trolls
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/daily-report-tech-industry-warns-europe-of-concerns-on-patenttrolls/?_r=0
11
Apple and fellow tech titans expand fight against patent trolls to EU.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/09/27/apple-eu-patent-trolls/
12
Patent trolls will gain from a single European system, vendors warn.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2049520/patent-trolls-will-gain-from-a-single-european-system-vendors-warn.html
5. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
There are different paths to consider correcting the misuse of the patent system. Since many
patents are international it is bound to be similarities in the application of laws and regulations
between countries. Therefore, it is interesting to discuss measures taken by other countries.
When it concerns US some measures has been presented above by the US President
administration, other by representatives at the Senate and members of the House of
Representatives.
Also when it concern EU there are an on-going debate and development of new legislation that
concern IP-rights that will be applicable in all EU states. The more harmonized and integrated
EUs IP-regulations become, it is considered the more will patent trolls be active here. Several
measures are discussed above.
The most measures proposed above are legal. In US, the SHIELD act present how companies
can be compensated financially if they win a case. This financial reward is a measure that comes
afterwards. However, in one of my earlier papers entitled Dedicated tax to science I discuss how
to get financial resources to IP-disputes for SMEs before for evaluation and for IP-disputes that
end ups in court.13 As mentioned above, it is not that companies might be right in the future that
is the major concern. It is the financial burden they carry meanwhile to dispute the claims for
licence fees put on them that concern companies and especially SMEs. The extra financial
burden inhibits the development of their companies. It is possible for countries in EU to give
SMEs help by adopting a designated tax to science. This will increase the competitiveness of the
EU-zone.
When it concern the financial aspects of IP-disputes it would be most effective to adopt my
suggestion that enable financial resources to SMEs to hire IP-lawyers and their investigators
before trial in combination with the SHIELD act. The SHIELD act propose if the patent troll
loses in court because the patent is found to be invalid or there is no infringement, then it pays
the other side’s costs and legal fees, which in US often stretch into the millions of dollars.
A thoughtful comment from a blog:
“Make trademarks and intellectual property ownership a privilege instead of a right, meaning that if a company
abuses the system for financial gain, then the patents or trademarks are revoked and the work is put in public
domain.”
Yours sincerely,
Jan Softa - Somerco Research
13
EC member states competitiveness in R & D Part 1: Designated tax to science. http://tinyurl.com/n5qrhdl
6. Jan Softa at Somerco
24/11/2013
Proposals
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 1 - Designated tax to science
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 2 – Strategy to support the software
industry
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 3 – Actions to support women in ICT
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 4 – Going abroad – Competitive assets
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 5 – Business incubators, financial
recycling and incentives into reward
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 6 – Standardization as a tool to increase
competitiveness
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 7 – Different types of innovations
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 8 – Open source from science to society
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 9 – Crowd sourcing and crowd funding
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 10 – Green VAT for business
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 11 - Keep talents in Europe
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 12 - Research leftovers
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 13 - Science Parks (In progress)
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 14 – Patent trolls
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Part 15 – No title yet
Enhance the competitiveness of EC member states Overview – Old and new key areas in order to
increase the competitiveness of the industry (In progress)
Input on threats against information society
http://www.slideshare.net/SomercoResearch