By Steven Tjoe
Today, misguided fears of an explosion of patent litigation and the specter of the so-called “patent troll” problem continue to influence the popular perception of patent policy. Over the past year, various organizations have spurred a movement to make significant legislative changes to our patent system, despite calls for caution and further investigation by judges, FTC Commissioners, former USPTO directors, and Congress’ very own Government Accountability Office (GAO). Read more
The patent licensing business model is a flashpoint of controversy in the patent policy debates. Individuals and firms that specialize in licensing patented innovation – and companies that purchase patents in order to license them – have come under attack by the President, members of Congress, companies, lobbying groups, and others. Read more
Today, CPIP released an important new policy brief, The Failure of the DMCA Notice and Takedown System: A Twentieth Century Solution to a Twenty-First Century Problem, by Professor Bruce Boyden of Marquette University Law School. Professor Boyden argues that the DMCA notice and takedown system is outdated and not up to the task of reducing the availability of infringing copies of creative works. Read more
Today, CPIP released an important new policy brief, “The Internet Does Not Reset the Copyright-Free Speech Balance,” by Sean O’Connor, Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. Professor O’Connor argues that “the First Amendment and copyright law maintain the same complementary relationship in cyberspace that they have in regular space.” Read more
In the modern digital era, strong copyright protection is still an essential component of a flourishing free market in creative works. Viewed properly as a property right in creative works, copyright is fundamental to economic freedom in our creative economy. Criticisms of copyright have flooded the public policy debate in recent years. Read more
The venerable high-tech company IBM is no more a “patent troll” than any other legitimate company that engages in patent licensing. Yet, according to the very arguments of those who are using this ill-defined and misleading term, the shoe fits. Read more
Below is the text of the oral testimony provided by Professor Adam Mossoff to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, in its November 7, 2013 hearing on “Demand Letters and Consumer Protection: Examining Deceptive Practices by Patent Assertion Entities.” Read more
Washington, D.C. is full of smart people with great ideas about how other people should run their lives and businesses. The more innocent of first hand knowledge and practice they are, the more generous and enthusiastic they seem to be with their advice. Read more
As we previously reported, there are serious concerns with the studies asserting that a “patent litigation explosion” has been caused by patent licensing companies (so-called non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or “patent trolls”). These seemingly alarming studies (see here and here) have drawn scholarly criticism for their use of proprietary, secret data collected from companies like RPX and Patent Freedom – companies whose business models are predicated on defending against patent licensing companies. Read more
