Palm to Support Patent Reform | webOS Nation

Palm to Support Patent Reform 7

by Dieter Bohn Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:54 pm EST

Well, we're not entirely sure what to make of this, but Palm's Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Mary E. Doyle, has just put up a post at the Official Palm Blog entitled "Innovation in a Changing World."  The upshot?  Palm is backing the Patent Reform Act of 2009 along with the Coalition for Patent Fairness.  Palm's stated goal, from the post, is that:

[...] worthy inventions will be patented expeditiously and compensated fairly while at the same time pioneering innovators will have the freedom to invest in new products without the threat of opportunistic litigation and disproportionate damages awards.

Palm has certain been relatively coy about the ongoing question of whether or not they're going to face a patent dispute with Apple and what they'd do in such a situation.  The upshot is that they're confident in their patents and the advantage these patents give the company should litigation arise.  

Of course, the other partners in this coalition include Google, ROM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, and, yes, Apple.  So it's probably best not to take this as some sort of salvo in the potential patent pugilism except insofar as to say that Palm isn't really fond of the patent system as it currently stands and neither, apparently, is Apple.




Where did I read, "Wired" perhaps about the touch screen is it possible that both palm and apple got that from the same source?

Reform is a funny term in lobbying, and that is what this coalition is, a lobybing and PR effort.

What Google, ROM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, and, Apple want is money and size to be more of a factor, and access to protection and stickiness of protection for smaller guys to be less of a factor, in patents.

Read "Coalition for Patent Fairness" like you would read "Coalition for Green Energy" put together by Exxon and Shell and the rest of big oil.

If you are huge, you want "reform" against the "frivolous" options and protections for the small. You just don't want people to consider that the big guys all themselves use the legal and patent system to stomp small innovators. And what they really want is for your money and size to count for more in that process.

Or does this mean that every phone will be able to use multi touch ect. ?

No it means if the big guys get the patent it is a good patent. And if a small guy invents something his protection is less.

Essentially the argument is if I have more property than you and are richer, and want to take your property on my terms, I would would like property rights protection reduced so that money counts more in court, since I can lawyer up royal and crush you. This way I can fund election campaigns of judges who will decide our case (not tin foil hat, since this very issue is on this session's Supreme court docket), field 100 IP lawyers and pay for experts, and if I make an offer at a value I influence through my resources, you have to take it and shut up.

As icing on the cake, I will get together with a bunch of other huge corporate IP accumulators, and use our resources to spin this as the opposite of what it is, and make it sound like it is good for the little guy.

Everyone wants to get as much as they possibly can. Sometimes this means posturing (public relations) so people think you're not completely selfish. This happens in HR negotiations, in service negotiations, product negotiations, social negotiations.

Corporations are made up of little guys, and small businesses are made up of fewer little guys. Little guys want it all, and they'll get as much as they can--small or corporate biz. It just so happens that corporate structure is a better veil--a type of anonymity. And we all know what anonymity does to human nature--it accentuates it.

I think we all like to root for the underdog. The patent system has major problems. This is due to the fact that it's part of the US Gov't. The USA gov't is better than many, but I don't think anyone thinks the USA is getting more business friendly. It's getting more robin-hood friendly, and that pendulum is gonna swing hard. How can we damp the oscillations?

Basically Patents seem to be like "free speech." Those with the dollars have disproportionate power to override democracy or fair consideration/competition.

If Palm wins this, can we have Graffiti One back? Pretty please?

No doubt 'patent reform' is going to be an expansion of the concepts created by the aweful Digital Millenium Copyright Act into patent territory.

That can't possibly be a good thing for innovation.