Probably overstated. in that I think there's little chance of more than a modest fraction being challenged. I expect that some patents will quite clearly fail, and won't be worth defending, and others will clearly be solid enough that no one will bother challenging them. Bear in mind that the main premise here is that the current standard is too subjective; what they want to replace it with is something clearer and more objective, if that's possible. If they succeed, then a lot of potential lawsuits become moot.
Also, keep in mind that many patents are simply trash at this point -- filed, but really never used and no one cares enough to defend tham now.
Yes, the cost is considerable -- no question about that. *How* considerable would depend on what they decided. IMO, it's probably worth it, but I am admittedly biased -- I dislike the patent regime enough that I would probably be happier if the whole edifice simply crumbled, rather than what we have now...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-30 04:39 am (UTC)Also, keep in mind that many patents are simply trash at this point -- filed, but really never used and no one cares enough to defend tham now.
Yes, the cost is considerable -- no question about that. *How* considerable would depend on what they decided. IMO, it's probably worth it, but I am admittedly biased -- I dislike the patent regime enough that I would probably be happier if the whole edifice simply crumbled, rather than what we have now...