Week 5 EOC: Paten Trolls

“Businesses now face potentially devastating financial penalties for false patent
marking of mass produced products thanks to 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
Under this decision, businesses that falsely mark an unpatented product can be
liable for up to $500 per item” (Davis Kuelthau attorneys at law, 1). Financial loss
numbers went spinning through several large monopoly company heads, at the
threat that “anyone” could take a falsely marked patent to court and split the profit
with the U. S. Government.

According to Searcey, “one plaintiff, Sarah Tompkins, who has sued more than a
dozen companies, is the wife of Allen, Texas, patent lawyer George Tompkins. –
Tompkins heard about it from his lawyer friends. He and his wife then spent hours
poring our Internet advertising to check for outdated patents on products. —The
couple trekked to retail stores to find falsely marked products on shelves” (Searcey,
5). These patent trolls would argue that it wasn’t fair to the rest of the public, that
the large conglomerate companies are enforcing nervousness into the smaller
companies about getting credit for their patents.

Others would digress even through strong feelings false patents. “That said, it
seems clear that the sudden goldrush mentality of patent attorneys suing all sorts
of companies for false marking is a pure money grab, where there’s little evidence
of any real harm at times. It just seems like a way to tie up the courts in hopes of a
golden lottery ticket (shared with the feds). That doesn’t seem efficient or useful—
and actually has some unfortunate similarities to basic patent trolling” (Masnick,
1). Understanding, the true meaning behind the craze of seeking out patents comes
down to me agreeing that companies do need to check their patents every four years
by law and pay the patent contribution. I see this as a double edge sword, I do agree
with Daniel Ravicher, a founder and executive director of New York nonprofit Public
Patent Foundation when he stated, “It chills competition, it misleads the public and
takes away from the credit patent holders deserve” (Searcey, 4 & 5). I also believe
that the trolling has lost the aspect of Ravicher’s argument simply for cash cow
profit.