How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`Search
`
`3
`Home
`
`My Network
`
`Jobs
`
`Messaging Notifications
`
`Me
`
`Work
`
`Learning
`
`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent
`System
`
`Published on September 6, 2019
`
`Michael Shore
`Michael Shore, Inventor
`
`2 articles
`
`Follow
`
`This is a story about patents, but more importantly, it’s a story about how the United States
`has become a modern-day version of the Banana Republic. The term “Banana Republic”
`was coined by American author O. Henry in 1904 in reference to Honduras which came
`under extraordinary influence by multinational American fruit corporations.
`
`Banana Republics are societies characterized by their starkly stratified social classes and a
`ruling-class plutocracy composed of the business, political and military elites. The Elites
`rule over a servile government that abets and supports, for “contributions,” kickbacks and
`bribes, the exploitation of the rest of society. Instead of Dole and United Fruit controlling
`Honduras, we now have Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, FaceBook and other tech
`giants controlling Congress and the Executive Branch through unlimited lobbying by groups
`like the Internet Association[1], High Tech Inventors Alliance[2], the Software Alliance[3],
`Unified Patents[4] and through direct and indirect (e.g. Super PAC) political donations. As
`demonstrated below, the only difference between Honduras in 1904 and the United States
`today is that the new bananas are smartphones, software and microelectronic components.
`
`What Are Patents?
`
`A patent is a voluntary disclosure of new, novel and useful technical information to the
`world.[5] In essence, patents inform the world of something it has never seen before that can
`be used to solve a technical problem or improve an existing solution. For a patent to issue,
`the information disclosed must be sufficient to enable a person familiar with the
`technological field[6] to make the invention without undue additional experimentation.[7]
`The purpose of the patent system is to encourage the disclosure of new, innovative
`technology so the base of knowledge upon which other inventors work advances.[8]
`Technology advances faster and the world benefits from those advances when new
`technology is disclosed and built upon instead of hidden from other innovators in the field
`who, if they knew about the new technology, could further advance it.
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`In exchange for the technical disclosures in patents to competitors and potential competitors,
`SONY 1054
`
`0001
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`the patentee has to be protected from free-riders and thieves who contributed nothing to the
`disclosed technical advancement, but would copy it for their own profit. So for disclosing
`her invention for others to advance going forward, the original inventor/patentee is granted a
`patent. The patent is an exclusive right to make money off her invention for a limited period
`of time. A patent is essentially a right to exclude others from using your invention without
`compensating you. A license from the patent owner to a company that wants to use the
`patented technology is a compensated, or bargained waiver of that right to exclude.
`
`A strong patent system means an inventor can rely upon the strength of his patent to actually
`receive the benefit of the public disclosure of his invention. This reliance on a strong patent
`system is called the “presumption of validity”[9]. In order to attract investments, justify
`research and development efforts and develop new markets for new products, a patentee
`must be confident that its duly-issued (and paid for) United States patent will be enforced by
`the issuing government and therefore respected by competitors, both existing and
`potential. In other words, if the patent system is viewed as weak as to enforcement of patent
`rights, inventors receive nothing for disclosing their inventions. The free riders, copiers and
`thieves can simply take the free information without compensation to the inventor. If
`inventors see the patent system as weak, they will not disclose their inventions, but hide
`them as trade secrets. This stifles innovation because new inventions that if disclosed could
`be improved upon are left unavailable. Most inventions today are improvements on prior,
`disclosed inventions, so a weak patent systems that discourages patenting slows the
`advances of technology and the benefits those advances would have brought to society are
`delayed or not realized at all. Patents matter.
`
`The beneficiaries of a weak patent system are large multinationals who already dominate
`their markets with financial power and market share like Google, Facebook, Apple,
`Microsoft and Amazon (collectively the “Elites”). The Elites do not need patents. As they
`gain dominance in their markets, innovation is not as important as market share, profits and
`maintaining their dominance. The “peasants” (read: small companies and inventors who
`must innovate to compete) need strong patents to compete with, and perhaps one day join
`the Elites. Patents enable the American Dream.
`
`What Google Wants, Google Gets.
`
`Google is in essence a software company built upon a set of algorithms to enable the
`efficient and accurate search of internet content. Google did not invent the internet (nor did
`Al Gore). The internet was invented by the United States government and research
`institutions supported by your tax dollars.[10] Google just found a really profitable way to
`enable the public to efficiently use the internet Google did not create.
`
`As a business, Google is very susceptible to competition. If a group of programmers in their
`garage could come up with a new set of algorithms that searched more accurately, faster or
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0002
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`even in a way that uses less energy, Google could be replaced, or at least have its market
`dominance threatened. But such a threat only exists if the new market participant is
`protected by patents. Without patent protection, Google can simply copy the new methods or
`use its hundreds of billions in offshore, non-taxed cash to buy the new market entrant for
`less than its full value.[11] Google understood its precarious position as to new and
`emerging technologies, so it did what any Banana Republic Elite would do--it set out to
`destroy what it perceived as the real threat: the United States patent system.
`
`Google was one of the three largest "bundlers" of campaign contributions to President
`Obama.[12] The year after the America Invents Act (“AIA”) was passed, Google employees
`and their spouses’ direct contributions to Congressmen were almost $1 million, spread
`evenly between Republicans and Democrats.[13] Google spent $18 million on lobbyists the
`year the AIA was passed.[14] Google’s support of “think tanks” and lobbying organizations
`was even greater, and was done in cooperation with other Silicon Valley Elites. These
`figures to do not include contributions from Google subsidiary executives, the lawyers and
`law firms that represent Google, stockholders and other persons and entities associated with
`Google who Google “encouraged” to contribute.
`
`What did Google get for its money? A new, weaker patent system that allows challenges to
`patents outside of court, without a jury, without any presumption of validity and using a low
`standard of proof. In essence, Google and its Elite friends killed any presumption of validity,
`the presumption that makes patents valuable by protecting the expectations of patent owners
`that their rights would be enforceable in neutral, impartial courts against infringers. The
`patent owners who paid for the research and development of their inventions, paid attorneys
`to prosecute the patents according to the rules at the time, paid filing fees to the PTO, paid
`issuance fees to the PTO, paid maintenance fees to the PTO, then invested time and money
`to create markets for their patented products by building factories, establishing distribution
`systems and marketing -- all based on the presumption that these investments would be
`protected from copiers, free riders and thieves by a strong U.S. patent enforcement system --
`now possessed patents that were not presumed to be valid under the new AIA procedures.
`This massive paradigm shift has caused immense economic damage to inventors and small
`companies that depended on their patents for protection from infringing Elites.[15] The
`Elites paid their way to the destruction of the very things that made U.S. patents valuable--
`their presumption of validity and impartial courts to enforce them against infringers. This
`was allowed to happen because the public does not understand patents, why they are
`important and how fragile the system has become to the Elite's efforts to destroy it. Patents
`may be important to a free market, innovative economy, but they are not something to which
`the media pays any attention because every time a patent is invalidated, a whale does not
`die.
`
`Google wanted a weak patent system because it already dominated the search and internet
`advertising market in 2012, the year the AIA went into effect, with a 67% market share.[16]
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0003
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`12/30/19, 6:07 PM
`
`Today with a weaker patent system firmly in place and no fear of any innovating
`competition protected by patents, Google’s market share has increased to 92.37%.[17]
`
`Killing the U.S. Patent System Required the Hiring of Executioners, in This Case,
`Administrative Patent Judges (APJs)
`
`Now that Google and other Elites had destroyed the presumption of validity and removed
`impartial judges from the decision-making process via the AIA, they needed a set of
`executioners. To finish the job of killing the U.S patent system, the administrative judges
`appointed to hear the cases had to be insulated from meaningful legal review and understand
`that their job was to kill patents. Enter "Head Banana," Michele Lee, the political appointee
`who headed the PTO’s implementation of the AIA under bundler recipient President Obama.
`[18]
`
`Lee is a former Google patent attorney who was in charge of patent strategy for Google.
`[19] Let that sink in. President Obama appointed as the head of the Patent and Trademark
`Office the former head of patent strategy for one of the most notorious infringers of
`intellectual property in the world. After passage of the AIA and $36 million in lobbying by
`Google the prior two years, Ms. Lee was magically promoted to Director of the PTO from
`her position as head of the PTO’s Silicon Valley regional office.[20] The fox was not only
`put in charge of the henhouse, it was a fox paid for by the wolves.
`
`The Executioners Ms. Lee chose were a new AIA creation, Administrative Patent Judges, or
`APJs. They are not judges in the sense that term is understood by Americans. They are not
`independent:
`
`1. APJs work for the PTO Director, a political appointee.
`
`2. The PTO Director can hire and fire APJs who make decisions they do not like. There is no
`tenured independence for APJs.
`
`3. The PTO Director decides what to pay APJs and can change their pay for any reason.
`
`4. If an APJ panel asserts its independence and reaches a decision the PTO Director does not
`like, the Director may convene an expanded panel to re-decide a case until the PTO Director
`and his/her political boss is satisfied with a panel’s decision.[21]
`
`5. The PTO Director may assign the APJs for each panel, so the decision on who hears the
`case is a political decision.
`
`6. APJs are not bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges or any other ethics
`code.
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0004
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`7. APJs can decide cases involving former clients.
`
`8. APJs are allowed to decide cases then go to work for the same companies that sought to
`invalidate patents.
`
`9. APJs are exempt from job performance reviews.
`
`Judges that are chosen by politicians who decide cases brought by political donors to the
`politicians are not really judges at all. They are banana workers who pick the bananas the
`donors want picked. Not every APJ is unqualified, conflicted or anti-patent, but in high
`profile cases involving the Elites, they almost always side with the infringer.
`
`And even where the APJs are non-biased and qualified, the procedures designed by Michele
`Lee governing the APJs conduct were set up to kill patents. Neither the AIA nor PTO rules
`limit the number of times a patent can be subjected to inter partes review. Let that sink in
`as well. The Elites can keep attacking a patent they do not like, directly or through
`surrogates, until they find an APJ panel that will kill it. No matter how many times a patent
`owner wins at the PTAB, its patents are never safe.
`
`Since the creation of IPRs, patents have been routinely reviewed on multiple occasions,
`some patent families having more than 125 separate petitions filed. Because a decision
`of one PTAB panel does not bind another one, surviving one review provides no armor
`against subsequent challenges. Thus, a PTO Director (or for that matter a President of the
`United States) intent on invalidating a particular patent for a major donor or supporter can
`continue ordering more and more inter partes reviews until the desired outcome is
`achieved. Pass the bananas.
`
`The Effect of PTAB Invalidating Patents Via IPRs
`
`On September 26, 2016, the U.S. Commerce Department released a comprehensive report,
`“Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update,” which found that IP-
`intensive industries support at least 45 million U.S. jobs and contribute more than $6 trillion
`dollars to, or 38.2 percent of, U.S. gross domestic product. The report, a joint product of the
`Commerce Department's United States Patent and Trademark Office and Economics and
`Statistics Administration serves as an update to the Intellectual Property and the U.S.
`Economy: Industries in Focus report released March 2012.[22] A crisis is developing in
`this sector of the U.S. economy, however, as new AIA procedures allowing attacks on the
`validity of U.S. patents have made these valuable assets far less valuable and therefore
`incapable of supporting the same level of investment in new industries and technologies.
`Jobs are being lost, millions of high paying, high tech jobs. Some economists are estimating
`the decline in the value of U.S. patents to be in the trillions of dollars.[23] That is a lot of
`bananas.
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0005
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`Why the drop in value? Remember, patents are only valuable if they can be enforced, so any
`“reform” efforts that make enforcing a patent more expensive and less certain as to outcome
`harms the patent owner and undermines the ability of the U.S. economy to protect inventors’
`rights. The proof is in the cost of bananas. The average price per patent over the three-year
`period 2012 to 2014 dropped 61% from $422,286 per patent to $164,232. In that timeframe,
`the number of patents sold by inventors dropped from just under 7000 to 2800, showing a
`decrease in liquidity in the patent market. The overall sales dropped from $3 billion to well
`under one-half billion in patent sales per year, or by 84%. The trend accelerated after
`2014[24] and has continued since unabated.[25] If an inventor cannot sell his or her
`invention for a price that supports their time and effort, they will stop inventing. When they
`stop inventing, innovation stops. This author recently attended a conference on patent
`monetization where buyers and sellers came together and found that IBM, Siemens and
`other major international companies are trying to sell thousands of US patents they no
`longer find worth maintaining because they cannot be enforced economically. There were 22
`sellers for every buyer at the conference.
`
`Why did this precipitous drop in the value of United States patents occur? IPRs and
`restrictive venue rules.
`
`IPRs
`
`Federal District Court with the traditional protections to patent owners invalidates 28.76% of
`patents as of 2015. The PTAB invalidates 76.61% in IPRs, and because there is no limit on
`the number of IPRs that can be filed against a patent, the infringers and free riders can keep
`filing IPRs until they win. The effective kill rate is likely close to 90%, and in some
`technology areas, and where the Elites hold economic monopolies, even higher.[26] If the
`IPRs were really intended to stop bad patents from being enforced at great cost, then the
`results in IPRs and district courts should be the same, or very similar. But the kill rate for
`patents in IPRs is almost three times higher. Unless you believe (1) that the US Patent
`Office is wrong in its efforts to issue patents 2 of 3 times it acts; and (2) primarily only bad
`patents get asserted, there is something else going on in IPRs. The IPR statistics prove that
`the system was not designed to get to the same results faster and cheaper, but to get to a
`different result – the destruction of the United States patent system.
`
`After passage of the AIA, the United States fell from 1st to 12th in the ranking of the
`strength of its intellectual property system, tied with Italy and behind all other highly
`developed economies.[27] As the U.S. weakens its patent system, other countries are
`strengthening theirs. China in particular is beefing up its patent infringement remedies like
`injunctions and allowing ever higher damages awards.[28] So the center of the intellectual
`property universe will move to China. That can only be bad for U.S. inventors and
`companies. China designs its IP policies to protect Chinese entities.
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0006
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`The United States Congress has effectively redesigned our intellectual property policies to
`protect political contributors, many of which are multinational corporations that have no
`loyalty to the United States because a majority of their revenue is sourced (and kept beyond
`the reach of US taxes) overseas. Anti-patent, market dominating multinational Elites like
`Google are loyal to profits and their ability to dominate markets.
`
`Venue Rules
`
`The AIA changed the rules on patent lawsuit venue to require the patent holder to sue an
`infringer in the infringer’s hometown, where it is incorporated/headquartered OR where the
`infringer both maintains a physical presence and infringes.[29]
`
`To understand how unfair this provision is, consider that a small Georgia startup company
`with cutting edge technology wants to sue Google or Amazon, two companies with market
`values of almost $1 trillion dollars each. The tiny Georgia startup has to go to Seattle,
`Washington to sue either company. That means they have to find a law firm willing to file
`suit there in a far distant town dominated by the Defendants in every way. The judge they
`will be arguing before likely was “approved” by Microsoft and Amazon before being
`appointed, and all of his law clerks hope to one day represent (or work for) Microsoft and
`Amazon when they leave after a year or two to enter private practice. When there is only
`one venue to defend, its easy to “contribute” to the politicians who will be appointing the
`few judges who can hear the case. So the trillion dollar company can infringe knowing that
`any suit will be heard by a sympathetic judge in a court where every juror knows somebody
`who works for the defendant and the defendant/infringer has been working on its community
`outreach and reputation for decades. And even if the little Georgia startup wins, it cannot
`obtain an injunction after Ebay[30] and will be facing an appeal to a single circuit court
`where every judge appointed in the last 10 years by bundle recipient President Obama was
`also vetted and approved by the Elites before being nominated. Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos
`can call the President or the Secretary of Commerce and get the call taken or returned. Does
`any person reading this think the little Georgia startup's CEO would get similar treatment?
`Whose views on the patents system will get the more sympathetic ear, the CEO sitting on a
`trillion dollar throne or the guy in his garage who just invented the flux capacitor?
`
`A Banana Republic only continues to exist as long as it can supply the bananas. Today, the
`Elites need the U.S. less and less. They keep trillions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes, they
`build their products in Asia and their largest markets are quickly becoming Asian as well.
`We are selling our democracy to the highest bidder while those same bidders are planting all
`their new banana trees elsewhere. Go ask the people of Honduras at our border what United
`Fruit and Dole are doing for them now. This is a small cry in the wilderness, but if enough
`people forward this article to their representatives and candidates, perhaps the Elite's
`overreaching can be revealed to the public beyond the patent geek community. Join US
`Inventor and other pro-inventor, pro-patent organizations. Make your voices heard.
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0007
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`[1] See https://www.recode.net/2018/1/5/16854324/silicon-valley-trump-netflix-free-
`internet-association-fcc-net-neutrality-lawsuit
`
`[2] See https://www.hightechinventors.com/
`
`[3] See http://www.bsa.org/
`
`[4] See https://www.unifiedpatents.com/
`
`[5] See https://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html
`
`[6] The term of art in the patent world is a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the
`invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
`have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) “type of problems
`encountered in the art;” (2) “prior art solutions to those problems;” (3) “rapidity with which
`innovations are made;” (4) “sophistication of the technology; and” (5) “educational level of
`active workers in the field." In re GPAC,57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed.
`Cir. 1995). "In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may
`predominate.” Id. See also Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indust., Inc., 807
`F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`[7] This “without undue experimentation” requirement is referred to as enabling the
`invention. See https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html
`
`[8] See http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/whatis/ (“Also, when the patent is
`published with all the details of the invention, other people learned of the existence of this
`invention. They might then be inspired to think up enhancements or alternatives to the
`patented invention. This is particularly true when the inventor refuses to license his
`invention, or when the licensing fee is too high. Third parties could then develop alternative
`technologies to work around the patent. Presumably they would then patent these
`alternatives. And then society benefits by having two inventions rather than one.”)
`
`[9] See 35 U.S.C. §282(a) (“A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent
`(whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid
`independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall
`be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0008
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”)
`
`[10] See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-government-researchers-
`really-did-invent-the-internet/
`
`[11] Google can make the new entrant an offer it cannot refuse: “We will buy you for
`pennies on the dollar to your value, or we will copy your technology and put you out of
`business because we own the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board and the President of the United States who will not enforce an ITC action against us.”
`
`[12] See https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638.
`
`[13] See https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00428623.
`
`[14] See https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2012&indexType=s.
`
`[15] See http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/06/patent-owners-iprs-bloomberg-
`aipla/id=78029/
`
`[16] See https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2232359/google-takes-67-search-engine-
`market-share.
`
`[17] See https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
`
`[18] See https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/michelle-k-lee
`
`[19] See Id.
`
`[20] See https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2014&indexType=s.
`
`[21] Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, No. 2016-2321,
`2017 WL 3597455, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (“While we recognize the importance of
`achieving uniformity in PTO decisions, we question whether the practice of expanding
`panels where the PTO is dissatisfied with a panel's earlier decision is the appropriate
`mechanism of achieving the desired uniformity.”).
`
`[22] See https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-motion/intellectual-property-and-
`us-economy.
`
`[23] See https://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/06/america-invents-trillion.html.
`
`[24] See https://www.iam-market.com/blog-entry/2016-patent-prices-hit-low-ebb-
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0009
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`%E2%80%93-iam-market-had-positive-impact-transactions-landscape
`
`[25] See https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/12/bittersweet-milestone-ten-million-
`patents/id=99132/
`
`[26] See http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/14/90-percent-patents-challenged-ptab-
`defective/id=84343/
`
`[27] See http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/wp-
`content/uploads/2018/02/GIPC_IP_Index_2018.pdf Recent revisions to the rankings
`showing the US Patent System ranked higher are based not on any changes to the US
`system, but instead changes to the concerted effort by the Elites to influence the rankings.
`
`[28] See https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123419814824764201.
`
`[29] Venue for patent infringement cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which states
`that patent infringement suits can be brought in the judicial district (1) where the defendant
`resides or (2) where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
`established place of business.
`
`[30] eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
`
`Published by
`
`Michael Shore
`Michael Shore, Inventor
`Published • 4mo
`The United States Patent System
`
`Report this
`
`2 articles
`
`Follow
`
`Like
`
`Comment
`
`Share
`
`39 · 13 Comments
`
`Reactions
`
`13 Comments
`
`Add a comment…
`
`+31
`
`
`Arkady Zilberman, Ph. D • 2nd
`CEO of Language Bridge Technology, Inventor of Subconscious Training of English Skills
`Let' make a small cry in the wilderness multiplied thousands of times until it grows into a tsunami
`of public opinion. Think about it: The average price per patent over the three-year period 2012 to
`2014 dropped 61% from $422,286 per patent to $164,232. In that timeframe, the number of
`
`3mo
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0010
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`patents sold by inventors dropped from just under 7000 to 2800, showing a decrease in liquidity
`…see more
`in the patent market. The overall sales dropped from $3 billion to well under one-half billion in
`Like Reply
`3 Likes
`
`
`Luis Ortiz, JD, MBA, CLP® • 2nd
`Partner at Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC
`Michael. Thank you for a very thorough explanation about the sources of heavy damage and
`ongoing threat to the US economy via destruction of its patent system. You would think that the
`US slipping from number one to number twelve would have been enough to catch the attention in
`DC that is needed to reverse course and bolster patent validity and strength again. I hope your
`article helps lawmakers wake up and repair the damage caused by many of them because they
`…see more
`were influenced by proponents of a weaker US patent system. (edited)
`Like Reply
`3 Likes
`
`Steven Powell
`Sr. EMC Networker v9 & v18 Administrator Veritas Netbackup 8 Administrator
`Michael Shore.... You did an excellent job here about the Patent game (as I call it ... a game...)
`You can have anything in this USA, Inc. if you have a Lot of Money or a Smith & Wesson. No
`disrespect to the ethnicity of the workers at the USPTO, but I got a bit shakey when there were
`so many names of foreign origins. And the big corporations are vicious, and everyone is on the
`take. "it's crooked as a barrel of fish hooks by now" Thank you for the update on the education
`…see more
`of what's going on.
`Like Reply
`
`
`Paul Hayes • 2nd
`Managing Member, Hudson Bay Wireless LLC
`Shore:"Federal District Court with the traditional protections to patent owners invalidates 28.76%
`of patents as of 2015. The PTAB invalidates 76.61% in IPRs, and because there is no limit on the
`number of IPRs that can be filed against a patent, the infringers and free riders can keep filing
`IPRs until they win. The effective kill rate is likely close to 90%, and in some technology areas,
`and where the Elites hold economic monopolies, even higher.[26] If the IPRs were really intended
`…see more
`to stop bad patents from being enforced at great cost, then the results in IPRs and district courts
`Like Reply
`
`3mo
`
`2mo
`
`2mo
`
`
`Adrian Pelkus • 2nd
`Artificer at Inventing with Adrian, LLC
`Aptly titled this article makes clear how the US patent system is a dead end and trap for everyday
`inventors. A US issued patent is now often a liability to the inventor.
`
`3mo
`
`Ex Google Michele Lee (appointed to head the USPTO under the last administration) arranged for
`$700m to fund PTABs and did not list it as "significant". A traitor to this country should be
`…see more
`prosecuted as such. Destroying the USPTO for American inventors is her legacy. The damage is
`Like Reply
`4 Likes
`
`Richard Alderete
`--
`Michael. Thank you. Great article presented in layman’s terms anyone can understand. Just
`look at the case of VirnetX, a software company that has been in court with apple since 2010.
` Four trials and four jury verdicts with monetary awards to VirnetX. Still Apple is trying to
`circumvent the CAFC decisions by relying on the PTAB (stalling) to get the invalidations of those
`patents already deemed not invalid.
`Like Reply
`7 Likes
`
`
`Paul Hayes • 2nd
`Managing Member, Hudson Bay Wireless LLC
`Shore:"Google understood its precarious position as to new and emerging technologies, so it did
`what any Banana Republic Elite would do--it set out to destroy what it perceived as the real
`threat: the United States patent system."
`Like Reply
`
`
`Juliette Fassett • 2nd
`CEO at Happy Products, Inc
`Fantastic. Thank you Michael.
`Like Reply
`2 Likes
`
`David Hamer
`Managing Director, Donnelley Financial Solutions
`Great article Michael. It's disheartening that the elites and government have conspired to kill the
`golden goose that was the U.S. Patent System.
`Like Reply
`2 Likes
`
`Tina Fagan
`Sr. Contract Specialist at GDT - General Datatech
`Sharing because i ha e a few friends that would find this facinating
`Like Reply
`1 Like
`
`3mo
`
`2mo
`
`3mo
`
`3mo
`
`3mo
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0011
`
`

`

`How Big Tech Killed the US Patent System | LinkedIn
`
`Michael Shore
`Michael Shore, Inventor
`
`Follow
`
`More from Michael Shore
`
`A Motion Every Patent Owner
`Should File in Pending IPRs
`Michael Shore on LinkedIn
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-big-tech-killed-us-patent-system-michael-shore/
`
`
`0012
`
`