SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL WITH PATENTS:

A patent is a PROPERTY RIGHT. In fact a land grant is referred to as a PATENT. An industry association, like the NAR, that holds itself out as a standard bearer for the protection of property rights and property interests of others should be beyond reproach when it comes to intellectual property rights. Yet, they are embroiled in substantial ongoing legal patent battles which allege that the NAR is not only ignoring certain property owners' rights, but actively working to undo them.

A patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date. The patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of the invention with the public. Derived from the latin "patere" which means "to lay open", the inventor places their creation at the feet of the public, knowing their complete vulnerability, and trusting only in the honesty of their fellow citizens for the good of all.

A patent, once painstakingly approved by the US Patent and Trademark office, a process which can take years, and cost tens of thousands of dollars, is to be assumed valid and treated with that respect. As an example in the real estate world, when a person drives by a home with an expansive and well manicured lawn, they can assume that the homeowner has rights to that land. Most people would probably avoid pulling up their family R-V and setting up a private camp. For those who may have accidentally set up their camp in the middle of the night and not known about the property owner, one would expect that a quick notice in the morning...with evidence of the deed in hand... would be sufficient for the "infringer" to vacate the property. But, "not so with the NAR" claim several technology patent holders.

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PATENT LANDSCAPE

In today's internet crazed marketplace, the pace at which patents are being issued has caused some concern. Researching and validating patents at the USPTO has placed enormous pressure on the organization and made room for potential abuses by inventors hoping to unfairly leverage such federal validation. It has also given rise to a dramatic increase in legal actions against infringers, which cost companies time and money to address. This environment further opens the door for nefarious licensing entities referred to as patent trolls which prey on the fear of these companies having to defend additional claims in hopes of quick and easy settlements.

Certainly there is no reason to give carte-blanche to a patent holder. Due diligence is the appropriate step. However; when a patent holder presents a clear and descriptive explanation of the invention, and there is no evidence that any PRIOR ART exists that may have been overlooked by the USPTO in its exhaustive examination process, then anything but complying with the law, in the opinion of many, can ONLY be characterized as ABUSE of the property owner! Coincidentally, when an industry association organizes, funds, or is otherwise behind such an effort, it can constitute Anti-trust. What circumstances can there be for an organization like the NAR to find itself in not just one, but multiple examples of this very offense?

WHEN INCOME TRUMPS INTEGRITY

ABUSE of patent holders in the US is rampant. The reason for that is economics. Most patent inventors, like most average citizens, lack the funds to launch a multi-million dollar patent defense case should they happen to find some large corporation infringing upon their property. One of the patent rights granted by law to the property owner is to exclude the "R-V camper and family" from infringing on their lawn. A second right, is the right of the property owner to set a royalty fee that licenses that specific action if they choose not to exclude them.

From a licensing fee standpoint, the R-V weekend campers don't have the right to point to the relative cost of a campground just minutes away, as a factor of "reasonableness" of fee. Every property owner should have the right to determine at what cost they turn their well manicured lawn into a trailer park, and certainly that should not be left to the discretion of the encroachers who refuse to move after being shown the deed.

The patent landscape is filled with abuses of inventors by large organizations. Tactics replace ethics, and Income trumps Integrity. Imagine patent cases being filed by inventors that are drawn out not for months or years but a decade or more. Economics can dictate that exact scenario. Take for instance a patent infringement case with a potential $10 million dollar verdict against a corporation. Calculated at an 8% interest rate, that infringing corporation saves $66,666 for every month they can UNFAIRLY DELAY the case or verdict. Add that unsavory savings to the revenue that the company may derive by continuing to use the invention, and you can begin to see how justice can be hijacked, albeit temporarily in many cases, to the benefit of the infringer.