This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2016/07/01/halo-v-pulse/.

● 07.01.16

●● Goodbye Halo, Hello Revisionism (or How Patent Profiteers Perfume a Terrible SCOTUS Decision That Helps Patent Trolls)

Posted in America, Patents at 12:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Patent trolls will wear the halo after Halo v Pulse

Summary: A short review/overview of this past week’s coverage regarding Halo (the Halo v Pulse case) — a SCOTUS decision that will help patent trolls in the United States

Patent lawyers like to focus on the Halo decision because, just like the USPTO, patent activity makes them money (litigation, patent grants etc.) and the consequences of the activity does not matter to them. It doesn’t even bother them when patent trolls take over portfolios and tax everyone (the externality).

=> focus | Halo decision | ↺ USPTO

“It doesn’t even bother them when patent trolls take over portfolios and tax everyone (the externality).”According to some of the latest articles about Halo, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], one’s position depends on one’s interests/agenda. Battistelli’s mouthpieces (IAM), for instance, say that SCOTUS “lowers bar for awarding enhanced damages for patent infringement”, software patents lobbyists say that all is fine (even if it helps trolls, like those that fund IAM), Science|Business seemingly celebrates the decision, Forbes (i.e. the billionaires’ rag) speaks in terms like “innovation”, and patent lawyers call it “willful infringement”.

=> ↺ 1 | ↺ 2 | ↺ 3 | ↺ 4 | ↺ 5 | ↺ 6

Coinciding with the latest report/overview of SCOTUS cases (by Dennis Crouch) there is this article which says:

=> ↺ the latest report/overview of SCOTUS cases | ↺ article

Finally, and on a related note: The Supreme Court’s statement that it’s the time of infringement that matters and not later is really unworkable and flawed. A defendant, for example, who finds another piece of prior art later, closer to trial, surely can rely upon that evidence (and/or opinion analyzing it) as (a) confirming the strength of an earlier opinion or (b) providing evidence that, from that time forward, its infringement was not “egregious”?

A lot of patent maximalists focus not on the aspect which is relevant to patent trolls. This decision has, in general, been highly helpful to patent trolls who may now be able to go after more companies and demand even more money from them.

As always, when reading about patents in sites that are run by people who profit from patents, take everything with a grain of salt. █

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend

=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.