A Finextra member 16 April, 2008, 03:35 0 likes

A study by our research director found overwhelmingly that patents 'are there to be infringed'. No major corporation has suffered economic loss through patent infringement as far as we could find. The results suggest that corporations can infringe patents and make profits. Advice we have suggests that no matter how strong or unique the patent, the likelihood of it being infringed by a major corporation is proportional to the potential profits and that very substantial funds are required to enforce. Apparently those billion dollar corporation's teams of attorneys quite often 'make mistakes' and overlook prior knowledge, and somehow don't find those patents they might infringe.

Subsequent legal action against the infringer rarely acieves anything except occasionally reduce the amount of profits for the infringer.

A California doctor's experience is little to encourage patentees. The doctor sued for infringement, an action which required him to come up with $65 million for the legal battle. The infringer is unlikely to have known that the doctor had access to such funds for his legal effort. The dcotor was subsequently awarded a couple of billion dollars, however the infringing corporation still made many billions more than him.

It's not like everyone has $65 million in their back pocket and one can assume that this is in the mind of infringers who do. Of course you still have to patent your inventions if you want to have any chance of reward from your IP.

A Finextra member 16 April, 2008, 11:03 0 likes

I agree although it (infringing on someone's intellectual property) seems to be not as common as one imagines.

It seems a bit reckless for an employee (director or not) to put his/her company at risk by knowingly stepping on a patented intellectual property. Moreover, it would even seem malicious on the part of any company's decision maker to 'copy' someone else's patented system after it has been offered to them by the patent owner/inventor. In this specific example, it's Mastercard offering it with ORBISCOM to RBS.

It is understandable for companies to copy someone else's intellectual property if the inventor does not even do anything to commercialize or offer the usage of the invention to the market. On the contrary, money has been invested into the marketing and commercialization of the invention. First thing that needs to be done is to make these companies aware of the existing patent.

How would it benefit Mastercard or RBS to not work with the inventor of these systems?

The bottom-line is that the inventor saw something that's not working, designed a new system, applied for a patent, received the patent and is now marketing it so that consumers can use it. The Inventor, banks and consumers all do want the same thing - a solution to a problem (card fraud).

www.cardswitchtechnology.com

A Finextra member 17 April, 2008, 09:45 0 likes

"It's not like everyone has $65 million in their back pocket and one can assume that this is in the mind of infringers who do. Of course you still have to patent your inventions if you want to have any chance of reward from your IP."

Just wanted to comment that there are now many law firms that would take on cases of defending the rights of inventors on a contingent basis. These law firms do take hefty commissions but I think they are worth it.