[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Bob Foster <bob@objfac.com> [2005-06-08 15:13]:
> Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> > Personally I think that one of the best hopes for patent reform
> > comes from the recent US moves for better accountability. When
> > companies cannot inflate their balance sheets (and VC finance
> > applications) with exhuberant valuations of junk IPR, the need
> > for CEOs to support the US IPR system will diminish, as far as
> > software patents go at least. Unreasonable IPR valuations
> > are a house built on sand.
> That's assuming a reasonable valuation is possible. Since the value of
> IP in the US is actually established as much by litigation as by
> business operations, it's a bit of a crap shoot.
> Suppose accounting rules were changed so that IP valuation was $0. Would
> that fix the problem? I don't think so. Companies would still pile up
> patents defensively and some companies would still find that their
> patents are worth more in the courts than they are in business.
> Allowing patents of algorithms is a bad dream you can't wake up from.
Right.
Removing them from the balance sheet doesn't remove the ability
to go to court for a jackpot, or the ability to itimidate a
compentitors customers or investors. Those advantages will be
accounted for. If not on the balance sheet, the invisible hand
will scribble it down somewhere.
The incentive to apply for frivolous patents is there. The
incentive to enforce them is there.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
