With the iPhone cutting into Nokia's business, the NYT quoted Mr. Mawston of Strategy Analytics: “Where there is a hit, there is usually a writ."
Nokia sues Apple over patents
**In a separate, but not unrelated, event, IPBiz notes the completely "lost at sea" discussion of patent reform by Rob Preston
of InformationWeek in the article Down To Business: Tech Patents Revisited: Alternative Approaches
In the patent world, we do not want an "independent creation" defense because we don't want everybody re-inventing the wheel.
Patents are public documents, and people are supposed to read them so that the wheel is NOT re-invented. It's about efficient use of resources, Mr. Preston.
Preston managed to criticize trolls and IT in the same paragraph: Alan Heimlich, a patent attorney with Peloquin PLLC, suggests a way to rein in both the trolls (the firms that buy up patents in order to sue alleged infringers in friendly courts) and tech giants such as IBM (NYSE: IBM), Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), and Cisco (NSDQ: CSCO) (which hoard patents to make a few license bucks and prevent startups from entering their markets). Heimlich's proposal: If you're not "practicing" the invention, you can't sue for damages.
Patents give inventors access to the free market system. If an inventor chooses to sell his invention rights to someone else who can do the innovation, that's all right. Patents are about inventions, not about implementing the inventions. If someone is gaming the system, go after the gamer, not after the method of ownership.
Of peer-to-patent [ the Peer To Patent community review project, which enlisted the informed public to share knowledge and expertise with patent examiners. ], the "informed public" amounted in large part to IBM employees and the "inventor" of peer-to-patent already took the last train to the Obama coast. If one wants more "public" participation, one merely can expand
37 CFR 1.99.