Difference between revisions of "Patent ambush"
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * When is patent abuse illegal?) |
(Laches: You snooze, you lose) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This problem exists in all patentable domains but it is particularly unjust in the case of software because the use of software is essential to almost every company, and distribution and development of software is very common (keeping in mind that developing a website is software development). | This problem exists in all patentable domains but it is particularly unjust in the case of software because the use of software is essential to almost every company, and distribution and development of software is very common (keeping in mind that developing a website is software development). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some countries' legal traditions include an equitable defense called "laches". | ||
| + | If an alleged infringer can show that the patent holder has harmed the alleged infringer by waiting to assert a patent, the patent holder's claims for back damages are estopped by laches, and the alleged infringer is not liable. | ||
| + | But unfortunately, this is not easy to show in court, and the patent holder can still seek an injunction. | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 17: | ||
* [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/121611.shtml EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus], Aug 2007 | * [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/121611.shtml EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus], Aug 2007 | ||
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070823/eu-rambus-patent-ambush/ EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush'], August 2007 | * [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070823/eu-rambus-patent-ambush/ EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush'], August 2007 | ||
| − | * [ | + | * [[Wikipedia:Patent ambush]] |
| + | * [[Wikipedia:Submarine patent]] | ||
| + | * [[Wikipedia:Laches (equity)]] | ||
* [http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html The Problem of Software Patents in Standards] | * [http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html The Problem of Software Patents in Standards] | ||
* [http://moneyterms.co.uk/submarine-patent/ Definition of "submarine patent", describing patent ambush] | * [http://moneyterms.co.uk/submarine-patent/ Definition of "submarine patent", describing patent ambush] | ||
Revision as of 14:03, 22 October 2010
Patent ambush is where a patent holder waits until a technology becomes popular, or until a company becomes rich, before launching an unexpected patent suit. The patents used in a patent ambush are often called "submarine patents" (although this term's original meaning was only for a certain type of ambush).
This problem exists in all patentable domains but it is particularly unjust in the case of software because the use of software is essential to almost every company, and distribution and development of software is very common (keeping in mind that developing a website is software development).
Some countries' legal traditions include an equitable defense called "laches". If an alleged infringer can show that the patent holder has harmed the alleged infringer by waiting to assert a patent, the patent holder's claims for back damages are estopped by laches, and the alleged infringer is not liable. But unfortunately, this is not easy to show in court, and the patent holder can still seek an injunction.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
- EU Tests Out Its New 'Patent Ambush' Antitrust Law On Rambus, Aug 2007
- EU Accuses Rambus of 'Patent Ambush', August 2007
- Wikipedia:Patent ambush
- Wikipedia:Submarine patent
- Wikipedia:Laches (equity)
- The Problem of Software Patents in Standards
- Definition of "submarine patent", describing patent ambush
- Court finds Qualcomm guilty of standards abuse, 8 August 2007 - the article lacks details - the ruling seems to form a defence against patent ambush, but what was that defence?
