None of those are pro small time inventor, those are all benefits to big business and lower the friction of infringing, i.e. making it efficient. It turns patents into an after-the-fact licensing scheme, where businesses can infringe all they want until a small time inventor can muster the capital to actually enforce their own patents. Your response seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic dynamics that influence behavior on both sides of patent litigation.
Your line of argumentation seems specious. If you have evidence to show that making compliance more efficient encourages non-compliance, I'd like to see it. It seems to me that if a corporation is inclined to knowingly abuse a small inventor's patent, they'll do so regardless of how efficient the compliance process is.
Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten me?
>Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten me?
Yeah, FRAND is pro-big business. It removes the upper limit on damages, i.e. minimizes the risk a business faces by infringing, which therefore minimizes any incentive to license a patent. It also reduces the incentive for a patentee to enforce their patent, as it takes ~$2-3m to litigate against a company like Apple through trial (not even appeals). Because of the upfront costs to enforcement, any small-time inventor is going to need a financier to back their case.
>Your line of argumentation seems specious.
My argument seems specious? You keep saying compliance... compliance with what? you haven't even made an argument, you just associate a few buzzwords and say "thing bad". You haven't explained anyway how FRAND and "compliance" are pro-small time inventor.
If you have evidence to show that making compliance more efficient encourages non-compliance, I'd like to see it.
And yeah, I’m using the word compliance in the straightforward, obvious way. If that’s a problem for you, I don’t think this discussion is ever going to be useful.
Think about it. If legislation can make FRAND mandatory, it can also make the penalties sufficiently unfavourable to large corporations. Perhaps, and I’m just spitballing here, back pay for non-compliance could have a defined multiplier. Then there could be an additional multiplier for non-compliance after the date a complaint is made by the patent holder. And a further additional multiplier for non-compliance if the corporation has revenues over $100 million annually.
That’s literally the first idea that came to my dumbass ignorant head and I’m sure there’s a dozen much better ones out there. The key point is that the system can be built in such a way that a patent holder doesn’t need a team of lawyers with clever tricks to be entitled to favourable outcomes. Standardise it all and you reduce the dynamic range of advantage between parties of different size.
>And yeah, I’m using the word compliance in the straightforward, obvious way. If that’s a problem for you, I don’t think this discussion is ever going to be useful.
I'm a patent litigator - nobody uses the word compliance in this field. It's not me that is making this conversation difficult. It's your apparent ignorance and obtuseness.
> Think about it. If legislation can make FRAND mandatory, it can also make the penalties sufficiently unfavourable to large corporations
Do you even know what FRAND stands for? Is this a joke?
>Perhaps, and I’m just spitballing here, back pay for non-compliance could have a defined multiplier. Then there could be an additional multiplier for non-compliance after the date a complaint is made by the patent holder. And a further additional multiplier for non-compliance if the corporation has revenues over $100 million annually.
Compliance WITH WHAT???
>The key point is that the system can be built in such a way that a patent holder doesn’t need a team of lawyers with clever tricks to be entitled to favourable outcomes.
Patentees don't need clever tricks, they just need to prove infringement. That's the only hard part. You skip past that entirely. I think that's what you mean by compliance, but you don't seem to have any idea how any of this actually works. Which is bizarre considering you are offering recommendations on how to improve something that you do not understand.
Ah. I'm reminded of the famous quote — "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Community discussions are wher you talk with other people, not to win on a technicality in a courtroom.
> nobody uses the word compliance in this field
I'm sorry that the word compliance isn't sufficiently in-group for you. Perhaps tell people that you want to gate-keep rather than discuss, as it'll save other people a lot of time.
Licensing isn't a compliance matter. There's no enforcement entity. It's all just civil litigation and party's deciding things on their own.
>Ah. I'm reminded of the famous quote — "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Community discussions are wher you talk with other people, not to win on a technicality in a courtroom.
I'm not trying to win on a technicality here, all I did was explain to you that your understanding of patent incentives was wrong and based on incorrect facts.
>I'm sorry that the word compliance isn't sufficiently in-group for you. Perhaps tell people that you want to gate-keep rather than discuss, as it'll save other people a lot of time.
It's not that it isn't sufficiently in group, it's that it is without meaning in this context.
> Perhaps tell people that you want to gate-keep rather than discuss, as it'll save other people a lot of time.
I've been engaging in discourse with you. You refuse to come to the table and recognize what's actually going on, just repeating yourself and your misunderstandings.
>Ah. I'm reminded of the famous quote — "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm plaintiff side. Anything pro small-inventor would be for my own benefit. Getting my client a license is preferable to trial. The thing is, the big companies never want to license because they can just force me to have to take them to trial, where we risk losing, or losing on appeal. You'd behove yourself to actually attempt to grok at least one of my posts instead of just typing "but compliance"
Its not because there is no statutory licensing scheme that you would have to comply with... bizarre that you are saying I can't english. No one uses compliance that way. And if your point was that licensing is a compliance matter, you could have said so given the numerous times I asked what you meant by "compliance" in this context. Apparently you just mean "getting whatever is demanded". FRAND doesn't achieve that because it's not what the small-time inventor wants, it's what the big-time infringers want. It makes it trivial for them to infringe and they pay only what they would have had to had they obtained a license. It removes the willful punitive damages standard, which is already hard to achieve. That would mean you could put someone on notice that they are infringing, and they can say fuck off, with no recourse for them down the line. How is that pro small-time inventor???
