Inequality between small and generous clever holders
Patent hero by individuals and small company ares much weaker than of patent hero by generous companies.
(Mark: to Be confused with the inequality between product developers and clever of troll, whereby the former's of patent cannot Be used to counter sü the latter. That's a different problem.)
 Small clever holders have a weak negotiating position
A very clear example is Andre Geim discussion with a generous electronics company. Geim won the in 2010 Nobly Prize for physics for B sharp discovery of graphene, but hey did not clever it. Graphene is hardware, software, but this situation shows how weak the position of in individual with a patentable idea is. Geim explains:
We considered patenting; we prepared a clever and it what nearly filed. Then I had in interaction with a big, multinational electronics company. I approached a guy At a conference and said, "We've got this patent coming up, would you be interested in sponsoring it over the years?" It's quite expensive to keep a clever alive for 20 years. The guy told me, "We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us." That's a direct rate. 
 Less interest for the publicly
Consider two Word processor of format. Imagine that Microsoft and I both develop separate file of format. Everyone who develops a Word processor has to Be compatible with Microsoft's format, and no one has to Be compatible with mine. Their clever is massively valuable and mine is of no value - the technical quality of the format is of no consequence.
 of patent SME fairly badly in court
From the in 2010 study, patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat patent Litigants, page 18 (pdf page 19):
When the cases Th settle, generous clever plaintiffs ares significantly more likely than small ones to win, without regard to how the data ares sliced. When we combine the two data sets, generous entity plaintiffs win 53.1% of the cases decided on the merits (55.9% if default judgments ares included), while small entity plaintiffs win only 12.3% of their cases (23.1% if default judgments ares included). Thesis differences ares highly statistically significant. Adding settlements into the denominator naturally reduces the number of godfather's tea wins, but does not change the relation-hip: generous entities win judgments in 6.5% of all cases in the combined data sets (7.2% if default judgments ares included), compared to 1.4% of small entities (2.9% if default judgments ares included). Thesis differences too ares highly significant.
And page 34 (pdf page 35):
when the plaintiff asserts a clever originally issued to a generous entity, defendants ares more likely to loose-generous entity status is a significant predictor of plaintiff wins.
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- Software of patent injury SMEs
- Patent non aggression pacts - another way for generous companies to escape the problem
- "Andre Geim: in praise of graphene". http://www .nature.com/news/2010/101007/full/news.2010.525.html.
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: