You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
This article is one of the best explanations I've seen of the new US patent system. It reminds me of a post I saw on the front door of a law office of "Never Confuse the Law and Justice". I spoke to a senior partner and she said this of one of the first things they had to explain to clients, for many were confused or had misconceptions about the two. Silicon Valley should as a whole should take the lead on this for IP is the heart and currency of the modern world. Right now the battles over IP will be the wars of the future if all parties don't come together. This is far to important not to be made a national and international priority. IP is the foundation everything is built on and crushing the creators of IP is the fastest way to destroy the world socially, economically and environmentally. There is no problem we can't solve if we fully cultivate creative solutions and industries.
Like Norred of the article, I'm an inventor of mechanical devices. These patents are the "good" kind. They are simple; make a drawing, describe the drawing, and claim things based on the relationship between the drawing and the available space.
What happened to Norred is not injustice. He didn't do a good enough patent search when he wrote his claims. And he failed to cover the space sufficiently with additional patents, making him vulnerable to a single swift blow, which is exactly what happened. And he should have IPRed Medtronic, before they IPRed him.
The article fails to address the real problem with patents today--claims are being issued to read on pure abstractions. This was never envisioned by the Founders when they created the Constitution, and its patent protections. The Silicon Valley antipathy toward patents has to do with all the user interface, look and feel, genetic code, and similar abstract patents.
The way the article presents IPR as a weapon isn't a fair characterization. It's an inexpensive way to head off a much more expensive process, as beneficial to Norred as his adversary Medtronic. If Norred were to IPR the Medtronic patent, he could probably invalidate the Medtronic patent as well. IPR cuts both ways. It pays to be the first to pull the IPR gun out though.
