<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
It is no wonder that we have such a dysfunctional government. Look
at the deficit debacle. Nothing personal Bruce...just venting.<br>
<br>
On 8/8/2011 4:53 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E405AF1.5090107@perens.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 08/08/2011 01:49 PM, Erik Anderson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAeZAZ5fDFBj7QSG_s9KvKgy2550cfMT=5JWQcw2T7KiVq-Tpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> One thing that might be good is that (as long as we
don't make any changes) that suing someone for patent
infringement when that exact infringement could be considered
"prior art" is hopefully not considered a healthy thing to do?</blockquote>
The American Intellectual Property Law Association's<i> Economic
Survey </i>has placed the cost of prosecuting or defending a
patent case at somewhere above USD$5 Million. The effect of this
is that the party with the deepest pockets wins by default and the
other party has to accept their license. There is no justice for
those who can't afford to spend lots of time in court. Patent
claims that have little chance of standing a court challenge are
regularly used to extract significant license fees from hapless
victims.<br>
<br>
A proper reply to the application is indeed based upon the
language of the claims rather than the abstract. There is no law
that prevents you from sending a certified letter to the applicant
the moment you become aware of an application, not two months
later, and this letter can be considered as evidence that the
applicant was informed of prior art in any later litigation.<br>
<br>
Technically, an applicant who files without citing prior art of
which they are aware is a perjurer. Theoretically there is a
potential of jail time for perjurers. Unfortunately, USPTO
disbanded their enforcement department in 1974, and there have
been no perjury prosecutions of applicants since then, only
"inequitable conduct" which can be significant for the attorney or
patent agent involved but the only peril for the applicant is that
they lose their patent. So, there is really no downside for
someone who attempts to shake down others with an invalid patent,
except that they might not succeed.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>