Cambia Lens

Columnist Joe Nocera recently interviewed Judge Richard Posner on the topic of patent law and lawsuits in the U.S. for the New York Times (article). Judge Posner is possibly the most respected living judge in the U.S. – even more so than most members of the Supreme Court. For nearly 40 years, Judge Posner has written extensively on the application of economic principles to various legal issues. Recently, Judge Posner “decided it would be fun to do patent trials,” and so he has increasingly volunteered to hear cases involving patent disputes.

His attention to patent issues comes at a time when many in the technology sector regard patents as tax on innovation, rather than an incentive to innovation as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution. While recognizing that patents have a place in innovative industries such as pharmaceuticals, Judge Posner argues that patents serve no useful economic purpose in other sectors, such as smartphones: “When you are dealing with products that have very short lives, you often don’t need patents because by the time competitors wise up, you’ve moved on.”

Judge Posner recently applied this logic to a lawsuit between two of the most hyper-litigious players in the smartphone sector, Apple and Motorola. Dismissing the case with prejudice, he wrote that neither party was able to adequately demonstrate that they were entitled to any sort of monetary damages. Meanwhile, he also noted that, having committed to license smartphone technology on “fair, reasonable and non discriminatory” (FRAND) terms, Motorola could hardly argue that an injunction would be necessary because monetary damages would not be sufficient compensation.

Apple has appealed the decision.

The 2012 PIUG conference began with a speech entitled “Why I Hate Patents.” The speaker, a venture capitalist, lamented that the U.S. patent regime, at least in the areas of computer science and business methods, has had the opposite of its intended effect: it actually stifles innovation and hinders economic growth. Judging from the applause and questions that followed, the speech was warmly received, and served as a useful reminder that the patent search community is not necessarily pro patent.

The remainder of the conference presentations and vendors centered on two types of technologies: visualization and document grouping. As presented, these platforms were closely interrelated in that the visualization software focused largely on generated representations of document clusters. The visualization demonstrations made for engaging slide presentations, but at least one speaker questioned their utility: a document cluster looks like it imparts a wealth of information and may well impress the patent researchers’ superiors, but what useful information does one actually gain? The document grouping, or search, presentations had as their conceit algorithms that would either search using natural language capability or that would heuristically adapt to the user’s search preferences.

None of the technology platforms really made use of the existing patent classification schemes. Indeed, the one presentation that prominently featured classification schemes was from the EPO, a non-commercial entity. By graphing primary and secondary IPC classifications against time, the EPO presenter was able to demonstrate increasing commercial interest in non-metallic battery technology – an immediate and practical use that virtually none of the for-profit technologies could match. In addition, the EPO’s efforts in assignee disambiguation also appeared to be further along than those of most of the other presenters.