> While it might seem odd that patents on vintage cameras could be valuable in the age of Instagram, when it comes to defending a patent in court, the more prior art a company can own, the better
This sentence seems wrong to me.
If I want to invalidate a patent does it matter who owns the prior art? Isn't all that's needed an example that someone, event the patent holder had disclosed the invention before it was patented? Shouldn't it be irrelevant who "owns" the prior art?
Two points. First, when you're requesting a patent be reexamined, you're talking to a patent examiner. To a patent examiner, patents are the most convincing form of prior art--if only because she's used to reading them.
Second, it's widely thought to be risky to have your engineers read other people's patents, because then, if they later infringe those patents, the court is more likely to hold that it was willful infringement, and triple the damages. So, if you've got to have your engineers spend time reading patents, looking for prior art on your competitor's patent, you generally want them to be reading your own patents.
You can't infringe on an expired patent, so you can have engineers read everyone else's expired patents without any fear of triple damages, no need to own anything. In fact that's the whole point of patents. After the monopoly has expired anyone can read the (hopefully) clear description of someone else's invention and use it.
It is wrong. All patents are publicly available for anyone to research and use as potential prior art for an invalidity defense in patent litigation. The author confuses this with the separate matter of answering an infringement suit by using your own currently in force patents to counter-sue for infringement.
Meant it in the sense of, you are defendant in patent lawsuit, and can show within your patent holdings, prior art related to plaintiff's infringement case.
> Meant it in the sense of, you are defendant in patent lawsuit, and can show within your patent holdings, prior art related to plaintiff's infringement case.
Sure but my point is that you don't need the prior art to be in your own patent porfolio, or even in a patent. You just need to show that the patent in question has prior art of any kind.
Right, but given the labyrinthine nature and colossal volume of software patents created over last decade, having your own trove and a team of lawyers to pore over them is best chance at catching prior art.
My wife is from Rochester so I end up there a couple times a year. It's pretty incredible what the decline of Kodak has done to the city. It's something everyone talks about.
I think the challenge is people worked at Kodak because it was in their town. And, IMO, a lot of these people remain jobless because they don't want to leave Rochester. Accessing this talent-base would require a company making an investment in not only the people but the city. In my opinion, the potential reward doesn't justify the risk.
Rochester is an awesome place to raise a family. Housing is low priced, $150k gets you a very nice 1800 sqft house in Irondequoit / Greece or $200k gets you a very nice 2000 sqft house in Webster / Penfield. There's very little vehicle traffic (other than 390 and 590 southbound around 8am) and most places in Monroe county can be gotten to from anywhere else in 20 minutes. The spring, summer, and fall are amazing weather wise. There's tons of local festivals and parks. At least 7 local sports teams (men's [minor outdoor, pro indoor] & women's [pro outdoor] soccer, indoor and outdoor lacrosse, minor league baseball and ice hockey, and minor league basketball), it's an hour and 30 minute drive to Buffalo for Bills / Sabres games or to Syracuse for college sports. Both RIT and the University of Rochester are good schools and there's a bunch of smaller, lesser known, high quality schools as well.
Parts of the city itself may be in need of some improvement but the overall area around Rochester is a great place to live.
If only there was more local investment in engineering. The talent's here because of Kodak, Xerox, and the universities, how long it will stay is uncertain.
Definitely a good place to raise a family. A couple of the top public schools in the country are here in the suburbs.
There are a lot of Fortune 5000 (so to speak) companies around, some were sold off from the Fortune 500 in town, others have started up on their own: Blue Tie, Pictometry.
I think every year it is a close race for largest employer between the University of Rochester and Wegmans (awesome grocery store chain).
The big companies get more press because of their history and visibility in the market. If Kodak were to fold up shop, there would be a loss of jobs, but it wouldn't devastate the area like the auto industry and Detroit.
Kogeto, a small NYC start-up, is already investing there. I can imagine a very productive corridor opening up between software companies funded and headquartered in NYC and manufacturing/hardware in Rochester.
Nice! It would definitely be great if that type of productive corridor opened up. Did Kogeto setup their own team there, or did they partner with a Rochester-based hardware supplier?
Got any recommendations on companies to check out / learn about that are starting up in Rochester?
I live in Rochester but don't have much free time. Have a 1 month old at home.
Granted, a good number of the younger talented engineers are leaving upstate NY once they get some experience, many are still in the area. The past few years have seen Harris RF hire like crazy in the Rochester area, which has helped with the decline of engineering locally at Kodak and Xerox.
We're seeing a rise in patent bonuses, so engineers who crank out patents are being rewarded. Bonuses seem to be inching up towards many thousands of dollars per patent.
This sentence seems wrong to me.
If I want to invalidate a patent does it matter who owns the prior art? Isn't all that's needed an example that someone, event the patent holder had disclosed the invention before it was patented? Shouldn't it be irrelevant who "owns" the prior art?