The patent trolls lobby, not the "pro-patent lobby" as IAM called it yesterday, is attempting to warp the debate. In general they're losing; the laws are being changed against them. So what makes IAM think that this "lobby in the US finally seems to be getting its act together and so the narrative is changing"? They just got that nonsense in the Financial Times (as we pointed out earlier this week). To quote: "if a recent Financial Times article is any guide, the tide might be turning. Headlined “Big tech versus big pharma: the battle over US patent protection”, the article goes through a series of complaints from patent owners, that includes the full list of Supreme Court cases familiar to all readers of this blog. Its hook is the danger of pharmaceutical companies declining to invest in new drugs if they are unable to effectively defend their IP; but the story makes clear that it is not just the large, brand name drug companies that are concerned – it cites similar feelings among semiconductor and electronics firms, universities and the venture capital community. “The large drug companies are only one voice among many that have begun to complain about how shifts in the US patent system over the past decade have weakened the ability of companies to protect their innovations,” writer Rana Foroohar states."
"The patent trolls lobby, not the "pro-patent lobby" as IAM called it yesterday, is attempting to warp the debate."Foroohar has a track record of publishing misleading nonsense about patents. We did debunkings before. And look at the name of her section. It's rather revealing.
One might say that the Financial Times, now paid by the EPO, has dedicated itself to patent indoctrination for the litigation 'industry'. They even created sections and campaigns for the EPO's management, i.e. not for examiners. They're a compromised publication.
"Foroohar has a track record of publishing misleading nonsense about patents."Also yesterday it was Gene Quinn (Watchtroll, the trolls' lobby) bemoaning the crackdown on patent trolls, inadvertently exposing what Watchtroll really is (and stands for). According to Watchtroll (2 days earlier), it seems likely that Trump has put the fox in charge of the hen house, but it may be premature to tell. We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt (if he is at all going to head the USPTO).
"One might say that the Financial Times, now paid by the EPO, has dedicated itself to patent indoctrination for the litigation 'industry'."All in all, the supposition that things are becoming somehow better for patent trolls/aggressors is delusional at best. IAM has an incentive to claim so, having been paid by trolls. And speaking of trolls, watch what RPX stated in is press release a few days ago: "As of June 30, 2017, RPX had invested over $2 billion to acquire more than 18,000 US and international patent assets and rights on behalf of over 320 clients in eight key sectors: automotive, consumer electronics and PCs, E-commerce and software..."
RPX markets itself as a sort of shield against trolls. Whether anything good will come out of it remains to be seen because some people -- rightly or wrongly -- accuse RPX itself of being a potential troll. ⬆