Comments on: App Developers Withdraw From U.S. As Patent Fears Reach ‘Tipping Point’

By: Ty

Ty — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:40:54 +0000

Individuals should be able to leverage the patent system to reap the rewards of the resources and efforts they put into a specific invention. But when companies turn broadly and ambiguously written patents into big guns directed at resource-poor startups, something is wrong with the system. It stifles innovation and ultimately the consumer loses.

By: Ric

Ric — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:17:03 +0000

It’s not necessarily as simple as that: most software patents granted have been written in a very broad, often ambiguous language, and applicability to a particular piece of software can often only be tested in court. The difficulty for those doing a search in advance is that where you may not interpret a particular patent as applicable to your software, a court might … and because you’ve done the search the court can award up to ten times the damages, because it is deemed to be a wilful breach … so most people will try and avoid 90% of a potential penalty by NOT searching.
The other problem is that the USPTO has been under-resourced, and so has not been able to research the existence of “prior art” for most software patents, many of which have been granted despite the “method” patented being in common use for some time. So you have a lot of patents awarded that are ambiguous and invalid … but that can form the basis of a successful suit. THAT’S what stifles innovation.

By: Dale Halling

Dale Halling — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:27:02 +0000

Due Diligence

Here is the question that never seems to get asked any more:
Did the apps developers even do a preliminary patent clearance search? It easy
for people who are computer literate to do a quick search of the patent
database with today’s tools to see if they are likely to infringe any patents.

If you were going to build a garage, a shed, a building,
etc., you would first undertake a simple search to determine if I owned the
land on which this structure was going to be built. This is just basic common
sense. Why do we constantly excuse patent infringers for failing to do the
simplest due diligence before they undertake building their products? A simple
clearance search makes good business sense. It ensures that the company is not
reinventing the wheel, it is good competitive market information, and it makes
sure that you are not going to be sued for building on someone else’s property.
Patent clearance searches are just good, basic business practices that too many
lazy business fail to perform.

In addition, the requested licensing fees that I have heard discussed are trivial, they are not even a rounding error on your taxes

By: Staci D. Kramer

Staci D. Kramer — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:48:11 +0000

These actions pretty clearly predate the Apple-HTC decision.

By: lrd555

lrd555 — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:44:50 +0000

This article should be ashame for spreading Fear,Uncertainity and Doubt/FUD.

Something tells me this stems from Apple’s victory against HTC found to be violating two of Apple’s patent.

There are no free lunches.

By: Jose Adorno

Jose Adorno — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 23:47:08 +0000

This makes me sick to my stomach