• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:37:54 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <42A6B389.1030406@a...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07207038@h...> <42A6B389.1030406@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

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.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Document oriented experience reports anyone?
• Next by Date: RE: Document oriented experience reports anyone?
• Previous by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread