Watson’s Federal Circuit brief says all that needs to be said if you are interested in reaching the wrong conclusion. Watson is simply flat wrong. I know that will come as a shock to those who revere him as a god, but he doesn’t understand the law and would be better suited to something he has shown an aptitude for.

-Gene

Strength is a relative term and not measured only by one factor (and not separable as it appears to be so driven with the points on damages). Your intimations of “intimidation” indicate a bias against one important factor of strength (a subjective hand on an otherwise objective scale, as it were).

As to the case you wish to use as an example – be careful. Hopefully, this is but an outlier. The case actually better represents a victory for those in the States pushing for a weaker patent system. To that extent, the traditional view (now diminished), is what I would suspect be the basis for the strength comparison.

You will understand if I use this event to support my argument.

Where I am, the owner of a duly issued claim, not invalid, and found to be infringed, gets injunctive relief. So, from where I stand, I’m still having difficulty accepting as an “objective fact” that the American patent system is “stronger” than mine.

Perhaps it depends what you, Gene, mean by “strong”? The greater the expense and the level of legal uncertainty in patent litigation, for example, the greater power to intimidate lies in the hands of the owner of a duly issued patent. But that surely is not your measure of “strength”, is it?

Consider a wealthy society with 360 million consumers and another equaly wealthy country with only 60 million nationals. There is fierce competition in both countries, between the products of a patent owner and those of a competitor. There is litigation. Validity is put in issue. Infringement is found, in both countries. The attacks on validity fail, in both countries. The infringer is enjoined, in both countries.

Now, in which country will the quantum of damages be higher? Might it have something to do with the size of the market (how many profitable sales were lost because of the infringement) rather than the “strength” of the respective patent system?

Now suppose the little country has a “Loser Pays” English rule about legal costs, and the larger country doesn’t. Which has the stronger patent system?

And suppose that the litigation in the smaller country is done and dusted within 15 months (or less). Decisions rendered on both infringement and validity with the prospects of a successful appeal very poor. Despite its lower damages quantum, is that country really the operator of a weak patent system? How come?

http://www.wileyrein.com/professionals.cfm?sp=bio&id=865

So are you going to pretend that Germany was free during the 20th century? Perhaps you have heard of World War II and the Berlin Wall and Communism? Once again you challenge and mock something that is undeniably true.

Regardless, I don’t care any more. I told you to keep your comments substantive and you are unable to do that. Mockery is unacceptable and you are no longer welcome to comment on IPWatchdog.

-Gene

Even your comment at 5!) is nonsensical, as part of strong patent rights include the money and high damages that you try to separate out.

I certainly do not know it all – but I do know when someone else does not know what they are talking about.

And again, thank you for your sterile comments. If anything, I appreciate you proving my points.

“on someone that does not get the US patent law system.”;the way you consider others not sharing your opinions spread some doubts on”I might learn something if you were to actually say something”(particularly in the context of the “strength of patent rights”throughout the world which was the aim of my first comment-see 5!).You definitely know it all Anon.

It is interesting that you add the note “as usual” – see my comment at 20 and note that you place your reliance on a particular viewpoint on someone that does not get the US patent law system.

But to the larger point, you still do not address the points that Gene raises – that it is you that needs to provide support for your stated opinion.

You are engaging in the very rhetoric you condemn and once again it is your own comments that are sterile.

Instead of backing up your viewpoint, you engage in a pedantic “combat facts at that level” type of rebuttal that is really meaningless. I don’t know if you think this type of writing is compelling, but when you are criticizing someone else for writing in a style of “this is fact because I say so” and you merely do the thing that you accuse the other person of doing, I am not moved by your response.

Rather, I am alerted to the fact that there is no real interchange going on at all.

I highly doubt that you ever read this blog and took anything here “for granted.” On the contrary, it seems obvious that your viewpoint was pretty much solidified before you engaged in any reading of anyone else’s writings.

It’s a pity then, that you do not, as Gene points out, defend your viewpoint. I might learn something if you were to actually say something.

this one is pretty good ,Gene.You definitely “deafeated” me.German people will be glad to learn that.
i understand this is probably what you call a fact!it’s hard to “combat” at that level.

but you’re right:i will be careful now when reading your blog and not take what i read for granted.

A strong patent system is necessary but not sufficient on its own for technological innovation to flourish. Agreed.

As to patent-eligibility, Europe allows signal claims and the US doesn’t. Agreed?

And as to MS, tell me, did the MS patent horde come before or after WINDOWS became a world-famous trademark, and Microsoft a global titan? Big Corp does what it can, these days, to protect itself against jealous competitors. Patents are vital for biotech start-ups but not for software developers.

As to enforcement of duly issued patent rights, we should compare pharma and design patent litigation in England and in the USA, and motor industry and medical device litigation in Germany and the USA. You think you can ignore patents or bribe judges in these countries? Is that what you tell your clients? Better first ask Apple how long it takes, and how much it costs, to get an English or German court to grant injunctive relief from infringement of issued patents.

Look, I’m not saying the the US lacks a “strong” system of patents, just that every country thinks its system is the “strongest”.

You are still waiting? Really? I’m still waiting. You are the one that challenged a clearly correct statement and have offered not a single fact that even remotely proves your point.

As for you not continuing the chat, that is fine. When folks are defeated and unable to point to facts they tend to disappear.

-Gene

In the case of Germany the key is freedom. For most of the 20th century Germany was not free. So it really didn’t matter whether Germany had the best in class patent system. Even assuming equivalence of patent system and patent strength, investment was not going to run from abroad into Germany at the levels it would rush into the U.S.

As for Bill Gates, perhaps you should ask Microsoft why it is that they spend so much money to obtain so many patents if a patent is not worthwhile? If patents are not worthwhile and Bill Gates knows that to be true there is one heck of a shareholder derivative lawsuit there for the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, perhaps billions of dollars between patent acquisition and enforcement.

But why don’t we talk about how the UK used to dominate the biotechnology sector but now the U.S. dominates. Any guess as to why that is? Broad protection for innovations in the U.S. compared with Europe is the key.

Let’s also talk about why India has only a generic drug industry and how and why those generic drug companies in India have been pressing the Indian government first for pharma patent protection and then for the protection given to actually be meaningful.

Perhaps we can also discuss why so much stem cell research has left the U.S. in favor of China and elsewhere. It is all about incentives and welcoming climate for research, development and innovation in a particular technological area. The patent system is one of the biggest drivers, although not the only driver as the stem cell situation shows.

-Gene