Originally published January 24 2005
Supreme Court's inaction in obscure drive shaft case leading to problems for technology firms
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Google, Cisco Systems Inc. and other technology firms are not happy that the U.S. Supreme court has refused to hear a seemingly obscure case involving disputes over the patent of one type of vehicle drive shaft. Neither company is formally involved in the case, but they say they need a decision so they can know how to handle potential disputes among 1,400 inventions they themselves have patented.
Google and Cisco Systems aren't too happy about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week in a lawsuit over vehicle drive shafts of a certain very specific size.
The justices on Tuesday refused to hear a hotly contested patent case involving drive shafts of "substantially uniform wall thickness" that pitted American Axle and Manufacturing against Dana Corp.
While the two Silicon Valley firms may have little interest in the mechanics of drive shaft manufacturing, they share a keen interest in the mechanics of patent laws.
In a legal brief urging the justices to take up the case, the companies say they hold more than 1,400 patents and want to promote a patent system with a reasonable "balance" among inventors, users and follow-on improvers.
The two firms are worried about what they view as a disturbing trend in which appeals courts second-guess trial judges regarding whether a patent is valid.
In that process, ending in what's called a "Markman" hearing (named after a 1996 Supreme Court case), both sides present detailed evidence to a trial judge about the scope of the patent and its history.
Nowadays, the companies argue, the Federal Circuit reverses trial judges more than one-third of the time--resulting in less incentive for companies to settle suits early, aggressive defenses of clear cases of infringement and pursuit of questionable cases.
Permitting this trend to continue, they say in a brief written by Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, creates legal uncertainty and "prolonged and wasteful litigation rather than innovation."
In the current case, Dana sued American Axle, alleging that its drive shafts had a thickened end tube, in violation of Dana's patents.
Open source panelists tout business models, pan patents (InfoWorld) from Yahoo!
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml