WADR you either have a very short history or a very poor memory of the patent "financialization" system. It has been around since the early 80s and before, and is not a "shift" of any kind. AT&T, IBM, TI, Intel, AMD, SGS micro and many others monetized their inventions. The only thing that HAS shifted are the mechanisms for bringing about their "financialization." Since corporate infringers find it more "economical" to use patents ab initio without permission - rather than negotiate a license - the Courts have inevitably become the "market" by which patents are "financialized" to use your terms. Hence the rise of entities who specialize in realizing results in that market. This was not always the case, as anyone with any actual experience in this field knows full well. WADR you either have a very short history or a very poor memory of the patent "financialization" system. It has been around since the early 80s and before, and is not a "shift" of any kind. The only thing that HAS shifted are the mechanisms for bringing about their "financialization." Since corporate infringers find it more "economical" to use patents ab initio without permission - rather than negotiate a license - the Courts have inevitably become the "market" by which patents are "financialized" to use your terms. Hence the rise of entities who specialize in realizing results in that market. This was not always the case, as anyone with any actual experience in this field knows full well. http://inventorchronicles.com/2014/06/03/real-patent-reform-part-ii-eliminate-the-easy-path-to-the-courthouse/

Have the good professors ever heard of owners who don't "use" the property, but rather rent/lease it to others? Its still being "used" for productive purposes, and landlord gets to charge a fair fee. Amazing! just like with..... PATENTS.

Hi Dennis I dont' think the two are mutually exclusive; right now if a patent goes abandoned, no one retains any enforcement rights, and the asset is lost. Once it is gone, there is only a limited window to revive, and one has to prove that it was unintentional. This is not easy when there is usually a conscious express approval to let the asset lapse. For that class of assets, the government could specify that they pass on to the government to monetize as it saw fit. Of course the government could outsource the monetization function as well if it wanted. OTOH there would also be a useful market in assets that are likely/intended to be abandoned, but have not reached that state yet, and thus can still be easily alienated. That is where I think there is a greater private market opportunity - locating those assets ahead of their abandonment.

Some time back I think it was a fellow at Patent Calls who suggested that the government should have a program by which they take possession back of patent assets if maintenance fees lapse and then auction them off to third parties to raise revenue. The original owner would retain the benefit of a non-exclusive license so that they could not be sued at least going forward. It seems like a win-win situation since the government would get revenue for assets that would otherwise go to waste, at little risk to the original owner.

Taranto is an awesome choice. He is versed in patent law like a professor, and has a remarkable aptitude for all things technology. I predict he will be a force to be reckoned with on the Court very quickly.

So it should have issued before it was even filed - pretty amazing!

Curious what the longest PPA is that people have seen? I got one for 1768 days....

Its very simple: Friends is another tool for recommending content that is outside the managed experience that Netflix wants to control. Netflix wants to direct you to the esoteric, older low cost titles with their engine. People who rely on Friends (much more than 2%) are costing them more $$ than the average subscriber b/c the former tend to rent more current material. New material costs much more to rent than old.

Dennis, I emailed you a few weeks back on this same issue as it occured also in the Phoenix-DTV litigation: http://www.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=137458&concurrency_check=false This case is also on appeal right now. At first glance the Phoenix facts look much stronger; in fact if the latter case is NOT reversed I think you will see a huge number of patents become effectively neutered.