[Sussex] Patent bites patenter.

[Stephen Williams]

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 12:25 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 19:49 +0100, Andrew Guard wrote:
> > The best way of look at patent I have been told is this.  It only worth 
> >   how much you can afforded to spend to defended it.
> > 
> > So if all can afforded it 100 then it only worth 100.
> 
> That sounds good, and it's the point Paul's making as well, but the
> reality is not that.  If you have a good patent and your opponent has no
> strong case against it then it will cost very little to defend it.   In
> this case, as Paul stated, if you're opponent is very wealthy they will
> either agree to pay a licensing fee or buy you out.  From the point of
> view of most businesses either outcome is desirable.  If you don't have
> a good patent or your opponent does have a good case then the law (as it
> stands right now) has been properly served.
> 
> The real problem comes when the patent holder is a rich organisation,
> and the target of thier litigation is a small business.  In this
> situation it's more likely that the rich organisation can frighten the
> smaller  organisation into giving up without a fight.  In this case it
> is cannot be said that the law has been upheld.   I see parallels here
> to the way SCO sent out thinly veiled threats to companies using Linux
> to pay them a license fee or suffer the consequences in court (even
> though they had not established a legitemate claim to such licensing).
> 
> These inbalances and injustices are the negative aspect of a capitalist
> economy and it's related legal system.  Note that I do not use the term
> "free market economy" - no such economy exists.  I think most people
> would agree that all alternative economic and legal structures that have
> been tried so far throw up similar abuses of power. 

Oooh the temptation to kick off another political thread.......


> 
--