What do venture capitalists really think about patents?
I note I'm the only one in this group who actually talked to venture capitalists and quoted a venture capitalist. [See also later discussion in Intellectual Property Today, "Edison's Light Bulb and Stem Cells."] Will the real VC position on patents please stand up?
UPDATE on 30 March from from bizzbandbuzz.
Venture capitalists won't "even fund new businesses without an assurance they can keep competitors out of the marketplace," Sarnoff says.
Mark Lemley: "If they aren't in the market and have no realistic prospect of
entering, an injunction does the world no good."
If Woolston says his purpose is to commercialize his patents, should
judges play psychologist, measuring the man's sincerity? If Microsoft held the
same patent, but hadn't commercialized it yet, should courts weigh its
efforts to exclude competitors differently?
Some believe these questions are irrelevant. MercExchange may be a
patent troll who blocks the bridge to progress, but "someone who owns the
bridge has the property right to choose who crosses it," says Ted Frank, resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, which is not
involved in the litigation.
[firstname.lastname@example.org; IPLB, Pg. 17 Vol. 04 No. 3, March 2006]