Yet another article on “Patent Reform” today. To listen to some of these guys, you’d think the Microsofts, Intels, Googles and IBMs of the world are at risk of being bankrupted by small patent holders.

In case you missed it the first time, let’s try this again.

A patent right is a property right. The essence of a property right is the right to exclude others. “Owning” my home means I can keep strangers and others I don’t want from living there. Having a “legal” ownership right means I can call on the legal system for help (e.g. if the strangers in my house are considerably larger than I am). Similarly, if I take a chance and buy a house in a less established area, and a few years later that area gets “hot” and I can now sell it for several times what I paid, is there anything inherently wrong with doing that? (This is, after all, America…) Should the law step in and force me to “rent” my home to any stranger who wants it or, worse yet, simply breaks in and takes it? Should the law step in and force me to do so at reduced rates when that stranger is a billionaire and can easily afford what I’m asking? Why should things be different when the property is a patent rather than a home?

I don’t know which of the proposed “reforms” I find most distasteful. (There are so many good choices!) At present, I think the attack on injunctions is what galls me most. If you can’t keep people off your property, what makes it either “yours” or “property”?

The author of the subject article asks “why you should care.” You should, but perhaps not for the reasons he thinks.

When I was an engineer, I had no intention of spending my life with a huge company. Like most of my contemporaries, I had dreams of just learning the ropes with an established company and then forming my own business around a new idea. Law school and some other things sort of sidetracked that for a while, but I’d like to think today’s youngsters still share that dream. If they do, I hope they realize that strong patents, and more importantly a legal system that will enforce them even against powerful business interests, are some of the few things that might give them an even break. If so, they should be fighting these supposed “patent reforms” tooth and nail.

Time will tell.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Philip P. Mann Philip P. Mann

Philip P. Mann is a trial lawyer with over twenty years experience litigating patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters throughout the country.
Mann’s trial work has taken him to various federal and state courts where he’s tried both cases to…

Philip P. Mann is a trial lawyer with over twenty years experience litigating patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters throughout the country.
Mann’s trial work has taken him to various federal and state courts where he’s tried both cases to the court (a judge) as well as before juries. In addition to trial court work, Mann has performed appellate work before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mann began his legal career in Chicago and Milwaukee before heading to Seattle where some of America’s most innovative companies were developing new technologies at breakneck speed. Before founding his own firm, he was a member of the Seattle Intellectual Property Law Firm, Christensen O’Connor Johnson Kindness.
Mann is an “AV” rated lawyer by Martindale Hubbell, indicative that he has reached the height of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.
He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois (Urbana) and received his law degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. He is admitted to practice in the States of Illinois and Washington, as well as before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and in various courts around the country.