"Apparently, Google thinks it can get better returns on $4.5 billion by paying lawyers to defend Android."
Interesting issue, is it cheaper to buy "bad" patents or pay money to invalidate them? The new patent reform would offer a sliding scale, including re-exams, PGRs (aka oppositions) and finally litigation.
Dignan also noted:
Google wasn’t going to cure all of its Android IP problems with Nortel’s patents, but it would have acquired one nice line of defense. Losing Nortel’s patents—even at the ridiculous $4.5 billion price tag—may come back to haunt Google and Android.
***Further to the comment below, LBE thinks the issue of truly "bad" patents can be adequately addressed by current mechanisms of re-examination. LBE thinks that the (proposed) ADDED level of post-grant review (PGR, aka opposition) is so "un-Deming" as to be laughable. Extra funds, if any become available, should go into resources for examination.
1 Comments:
Indeed, the question whether to fight legal battles to invalidate bad patents or anyway pay for them is - especially in the light of Microsoft v I4I - an interesting one.
Post a Comment
<< Home