Peter Harter bridges the ecosystems of technology, business, law, venture finance and politics. He provides advice to management, boards and investors on the risks of legislation, regulation, court cases, media, standards, treaties, political campaigns, capital, property and labor. Subject areas of expertise include patents, copyrights, open source, cybersecurity, export controls, voting, antitrust, nuclear energy, big data, and medical research reform. Peter’s career began in 1993 as an Internet lawyer. He broadened in Silicon Valley as head of global government affairs for Netscape and EMusic.com and in business development and sales for Securify. He deepened his experience in policy in Washington, DC, lobbying on patent reform for Intellectual Ventures. Peter is a graduate of Lehigh University and Villanova Law School. He resides in Sonoma County, California, where his wife is a wine maker.
The Wall Street Journal explains ithat the Silicon Valley culture has long regarded copying as a good thing and necessary for rapid growth, first to market, first mover advantage, network effects, world domination, liquidity for early investors and Founders, etc. What complete and total garbage. When you live in a culture that tolerates and even promotes copying that is, in fact, what you get. When everyone copies everyone that means no one is innovating. Many studies and articles in recent years have highlighted how we have a net loss of startups over the past 30 years and that companies are no longer innovating.
Phyllis Schlafly was a true friend of and advocate for the American inventor. Mrs. Schlafly’s life-long admiration of inventors was deeply felt and well-founded. Her biographer reports Mrs. Schlafly regarded an inventor to be “the most glorious product of the free-enterprise system.” She had firsthand exposure to an inventor: her father, Bruce Stewart.
IntegraSpec was denied the opportunity to make its case here because of collateral estoppel based on the reasoning that they already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the dispute. What exactly does “full and fair” mean? Figuring out what the means in the context of Rule 36 disposals is complicated. We do know, however, what “full and fair” cannot mean. The term “full and fair” cannot mean “equal.” While the Federal Circuit continues to want to say that cases decided using the Rule 36 summary mechanism are “no less carefully decided,” the fact is that litigants in Rule 36 cases receive less consideration by the Court; this truth is factually indisputable. It takes a certain amount of time to decide the answers to the questions presented, but it also takes a certain amount of time to explain those answers in a written decision. To think the act of writing the decision is purely ministerial and makes no difference strikes me as pure nonsense.
If you are having trouble figuring out how Zond could have had 371 claims, lost all of them, but only 1,220 claims were instituted out of 1,377 claims challenged, you understand the problem. These are not misprints or mistakes. Zond had 371 unique patent claims, but because of the IPR gang tackling phenomena those 371 claims were challenged a total of 1,377 times, but instituted only 1,220 times. Thus, the number of institutions is more than three times the number of unique claims Zond owned. In other words, the institution rate shouldn’t have been 88.6%, it should have been closer to 329%!