Publishing Against "Patent Terrorism"
Referring to Commerce One's "web services" patent portfolio auction scheduled for December 6, 2004 at the federal bankruptcy court in San Francisco, an intellectual property attorney in Palo Alto, California reportedly told the New York Times that "The big issue is what people call 'patent terrorism.'" Robert Glushko, one of the inventors, is also quoted in the article as saying "We filed these patents to describe a standard method for using documents to connect services into business networks. At Commerce One, our business model depended on an open infrastructure for doing that. It is completely antithetical to our intent to use the patents to prevent it."
Well then Mr. Glushko, a simple publication would have sufficed quite nicely.
2 Comments:
I don't understand how one can view a patent as anything other than an asset, pure and simple.
One that can be bought, sold, licensed, etc. just as any other asset.
These shortsighted individuals need to realized that if the so called 'patent terrorists' are not allowed to fulfill their role in the patent asset marketplace then other contrived mechanisms will emerge in order to replace this market functionality (such as financing arrangements where the original assignee or inventor enforces the patent and the 'patent terrorists' finance the enforcement in exchange for a lien against future revenues).
According to the Washington Post on December 6, 2004, "Bankrupt Internet software maker Commerce One Inc. auctioned off dozens of prized online patents for $15.5 million in a sale that could provoke a legal scuffle over whether the new owner is entitled to collect royalties from a long list of technology heavyweights."
Post a Comment
<< Home
© 2004-2007 William F. Heinze