Opposition to patent reform

A paper titled "An Examination of the Economics of the U.S. Patent System" takes an opposing view against recent ideas on patent reform, such as "anti-troll legislation". These ideas include making lawsuits more difficult for so-called "patent trolls" (forcing lawsuits to be filed individually, for example) and invalidating "abstract" patents.

The paper contests the term "patent troll", which many of us identify as a major problem in the patent system. We see non-practicing entities as parasites. The authors of the paper, on the other hand, see them as "independent inventors, universities, small patent-based businesses, practicing companies and other legitimate patent holders who legally and rightfully enforce their hard-earned patent rights.".

I think there is some merit to this argument. Individuals, small businesses, and universities, can develop ideas into inventions. Although they don't have the ability to manufacture their inventions, surely they should be able to apply for patents and receive royalties from manufacturers. Right?

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I have difficulty accepting many of the authors' arguments. For example, they call the "patent troll" problem "fiction created by large corporations who suffer the consequences of infringement and wish to steal inventions without such consequences...and by lobbyists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation...who are paid incredible sums of money to maximize the fabricated 'patent troll' problem." However, I disagree -- patent trolls are a real problem. High-stakes patent lawsuits increase risk, discourage innovation and raise the costs for manufacturing, which get passed down to consumers.

In fact, I support the EFF, a civil liberties group, with a small donation each year, so I have difficulty accepting that characterization. Indeed, the EFF has a patent reform program (for software patents), a patent busting project (to invalidate bogus patents), and has received a half-million dollars in funding for these projects, but I see those as good things that protect software developers and users alike.

It's also worth mentioning that one of the author's is CEO of AmiCOUR IP Group, which submitted an amicus curiae brief that sided with i4i (a non-practicing entity) in i4i v. Microsoft, a 2009 case in the Eastern District of Texas. Although the case was finally appealed to the Supreme Court and Microsoft was unsuccessful at invalidating the patent,  many in the tech industry at the time thought that the patent was generic, and the judgment extreme. i4i is not the best example of a patent troll, since it does have a product of its own, but Microsoft did compare it to one.

In the continuing patent reform debate, we are likely to see a strange union of software developers, hardware manufacturers, and civil liberties groups pitted against another strange union of universities, patent owners, patent trolls, and attorneys.