Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

PatenHawk praises Lemley, sort of

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

In the post Jaw, PatentHawk (Gary Odom) wrote of Lemley's prepared testimony before the Senate on patent reform (S.515):

However one may agree or disagree with Lemley, he has done his homework, and his stated positions are logical, if springing from flawed assumptions.

This is the same Mark Lemley who proclaimed Gary Boone to be the inventor of the integrated circuit [IC] in the Stanford Law Review, who reversed himself (in the presence of no additional information) on Robert Clarke's analysis of patent grant rate, and who asserted that the inventors of the transistor thought it only good for hearing aids, based on a non-existent article in the New York Times. Done his homework??? Lemley is an academic hip-shooter.

But, of course, there's more to this.

PatentHawk continued:

Lemley's flawed assumption with damages is that the current damages regime is insufficient in consideration of what constitutes reasonable royalty. Lemley harps on an "entire market value rule" which does not exist. That makes Lemley's arguments, likely Lemley himself, academic, i.e., as the dictionary defines the word, "without practical or useful significance."

Separately, one observes that Lemley's published prepared testimony comprises two parts, the second part of which is "all about damages", while the first part is directed to everything else. One notes the first part is a bit different from times past.
More on that at a later time.

The PatentHawk blog had a comment on patent reform 2009 itself -->

You are missing the whole point of patent 'reform.' The point of patent reform is NOT to improve the patent system. The point of patent reform is to save M$/Google/Ci$co a few bucks (the US economy be damned! Enforcement of IP rights in China be damned!) and to make a few bucks (i.e. $10,000 per plate dinner) for Leahy and the other bought senators. It doesnt even save THAT much money for the IP Goliaths - Intel spends more $$$ on anti-trust litigation than on defending patent suits.

A few years ago Chisum had on article on patent reform in JMRIPL which addressed the same points, but in a more polite way. One notes that it was Lemley, not Chisum, who appeared before the Senate.

Full post as published by IPBiz on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).