Be Careful What You Wish For: Taiwan Using US Pressured Patent Laws Against US Companies

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Mon, Mar 7th 2011 2:48am — Mike Masnick

We already pointed out how, after years of pressure from the US, China was beginning to "respect" intellectual property laws, but was conveniently doing so in ways that harmed US companies, ruling in favor of Chinese company patents, and claiming US (and European) firms infringed. It appears that Taiwan is doing something similar. Jack Thompson points us to the news that, after being pressured heavily by the USTR to change its patent laws to get off the infamous "Special 301 Priority Watch List," Taiwan now appears to be using those new laws to hit back at American companies. In fact, Taiwan was pressured heavily by (there they are again!) the US Chamber of Commerce to set up a special "IP Court," with experts focused on intellectual property law. The Chamber of Commerce claimed this would "speed" trials along and promise "more consistent and professional" rulings. What it probably didn't count on was that most of those consistent and professional rulings would go against US companies. It's really stunning how the Chamber of Commerce can be so short-sighted. Its lobbying pressure hands foreign governments perfectly "legal" protectionist tools that they can use against the US companies the CoC is supposedly paid to represent. If I were a Chamber of Commerce member, I'd want my money back.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patents, taiwan

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:13am

Just wait for the silver lining to appear.
Now that foreign interests are attacking US companies, perhaps this will help speed up the idea regarding how patents are harmful, not based on innovation, so that the USCC will finally ditch support of them and begin to lobby our Congress for the removal of Article 1, Section 8.

*crosses fingers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:26am

Fact 1: China implemented patent systems.
Fact 2: First thing they did was attack foreign companies with patent disputes.
Fact 3: Taiwan implemented patent systems.
Fact 4: First thing they did was attack foreign companies with patent disputes.

Conclusion 1: We need more protectionism!
Conclusion 2: Let's force patents on another country so they can shoot us in the face with our own system!!
Conclusion 3: Patents promote technological progress!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:27am

Huh?
Taiwan was pressured heavily by (there they are again!) the US Chamber of Commerce to set up a special "IP Court," with experts focused on intellectual property law.
Hang on a mo. Isn't that a really rather blatant "Do as we say not as we do" moment? I don't recall the US having a "special IP court". On the other hand I do seem to recall US courts having a massive backlog of cases in general and a penchant for seemingly random decisions that contradict each other when it comes to IP. Wouldn't it make more sense to sort out your own back yard before you start trying to dictate to others?

[troll] Or are we assuming the "special IP court" in the US is the industry "experts" who just get to decide what's "best" without recourse to regular courts?[/troll]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Huh?
  The reason we don't have one [yet] is because CofC will come back to our Congress critters and point out to them all the wonderful things other countries are doing to protect IP, and we wouldn't want our own US creators to get any *less* protection, would we?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re: Huh?
    The reason we don't have one [yet] is because CofC will come back to our Congress critters and point out to them all the wonderful things other countries are doing to protect IP, and we wouldn't want our own US creators to get any *less* protection, would we?
    So you're saying the technique is bully those you can to do what you want then use their compliance to guilt and/or blackmail the others? I guess that sounds fairly likely.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:28am

you made your bed, now lie on it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:36am
  
  Re:
  I'm sorry that bed is protected by our patent, and by you having an American made copy of our patented bed you have caused us 22 Gajillion dollars worth of losses!
  
  Now we could take you to court and clean you out or you can pay us this small fee of 1 Billion and we promise to not prosecute you, unless we find out you copied someone elses intellectual property, then your on the hook for the full 22 Gajillion again.
  
  Patent trolling combined with speculative invoicing.
  Its win win!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:50am

Jack Thompson?
The Jack Thompson? As in video games are murder simulators Jack Thompson?

On another note, how do we get ourselves into messes like this? Why do we assume that getting stronger patent laws in other countries will benefit us? Where is the logic here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 3:57am
  
  Re: Jack Thompson?
  For the lulz. I swear, sometimes the USTR appears to be run by Anonymous, for the sole purpose of harming US interests abroad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Spaceboy (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:03am
    
    Re: Re: Jack Thompson?
    I think you just hit the nail on the head.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 5:07am
  
  Re: Jack Thompson?
  Where is the logic here?
  
  They do not think at that level. To them, patents = good thus more patents = more good. If they really thought it through, they would end up being against patents - so the only ones left being for patents are the ones which do not think it through.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re: Jack Thompson?
    ...the ones who do not think it through.
    
    I need a grammar checker.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Jack Thompson?
  it doesnt benifit us... it benifits corporate interests and CoC who gets its funding from.....
  DUNN DUNN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN......corporate interests.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Jack Thompson?
  it doesnt benifit us... it benifits corporate interests and CoC who gets its funding from.....
  DUNN DUNN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN......corporate interests.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re: Jack Thompson?
    stupid IE >:(
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Thompson (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: Jack Thompson?
  Nope haha - the Jack Thompson as in a tertiary student from New Zealand whose favourite computer game happens to be Grand Theft Auto.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 2:23am
    
    Re: Re: Jack Thompson?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:02am

It is simple math really.

U.S. = 350 million people
Rest of the world = 6.75 Billion people.

350 million people will not be able to file as many patents as the rest of the world, is just that simple, you think exports are bad in the U.S. just wait a couple of decades to see what it will happen, Asians are more competent, have more drive and willingness and will file 10 times more patents than their U.S. counterparts and they will start asking to be paid for it.

American innovation was trashed by Japanese innovation, that is being trashed by Chinese and Korean innovation.

Also the idiots are moving to a system that you don't really need to prove that crap works or is obvious, so people will file everything they can.

The hard part is implementing ideas not having them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 5:38am
  
  Re:
  American duplication was trashed by Japanese duplication, that is being trashed by Chinese and Korean duplication.
  
  Fixed that for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Benjamin, 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:14am

Is it still the US Chamber
There was all those reports that Chinese companies gave the US Chamber of Commerce millions of dollars to buy TV time to influence the last US election. So the question is would the US Chamber mind if the US companies are hurt? Has their loyalty been replaced with their new funding source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:52am
  
  Re: Is it still the US Chamber
  I, for one, welcome our new Oriental overlords.
  
  The CoC is looking more and more like a villain out of an RPG campaign. And not even a quality one, to boot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous American, 7 Mar 2011 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re: Is it still the US Chamber
    The CoC is looking more and more like a villain out of an RPG campaign.
    I first parsed CoC as Call of Cthulhu... fitting it seems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 7:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Is it still the US Chamber
      Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Commerce R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn...
      
      Hmm.......
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 5:38am

CoC doesn't represent US companies. They are an advocacy group for multinational corporations, with few actually based in United States. Basically, this was probably their goal from the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 5:45am

As predicted
Obvious. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 6:29am
  
  Re: As predicted
  Just make sure the design of that sword does not belong to someone else first.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 7:39am
    
    Re: Re: As predicted
    Sorry, all covered:
    
    Patent xxx-5731-wtf:
    
    Methods for production of large metallic blades for use in warfare, sports and witty metaphors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 7:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: As predicted
      Methods for production of large metallic blades for use in warfare, sports and witty metaphors.
      I'm sorry I'm going to have to sue you for that one. You're infringing on:
      Patent xxx-5713-wth:
      Dagger: A metallic weapon pointed with 1 or 2 cutting edges used in warfare and sharp metaphors.
      Also the derivative:
      Patent xxx-5714-wth:
      Dirk: A long dagger with a straight blade designed specifically to be used in warfare with a scottish accent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
velox (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 8:31am

And don't forget that licensing fees for both for Patents xxx-5713-wth and xxx-5714-wth must remitted with funds denominated in Renmimbi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  Well at least it keeps all the lawyers in a job. Where would we be without lawyers? Oh... wait....!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 8:51am

It is a bit surprising that the general tenor of the post suggests that the national law of foreign countries may be used against US businesses in those countries in matters pertaining to laws such as patent law, and that such US businesses might be surprised at the application of such laws to their in-country activities.

This is hardly "news" to US businesses, which have been dealing with just these issues for decades, and are none the worse for the wear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- velox (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  "... the general tenor of the post suggests that the national law of foreign countries may be used against US businesses in those countries in matters pertaining to laws such as patent law, and that such US businesses might be surprised at the application of such laws to their in-country activities. This is hardly "news" to US businesses, which have been dealing with just these issues for decades, and are none the worse for the wear."
  Yes, but it is likely that those companies who have been dealing with this issues for decades were not the same companies which had been the driving force behind the CoC's efforts. This latter group, if I am not mistaken, is from the entertainment sector, whereas the companies who have experienced this problem (and likely will continue to deal with its consequences) are companies who either import or manufacture durable goods, in particular, the high-tech industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Patent laws, domestic and international, are for all intents and purposes invisible to the "entertainment industry" (whose bread and butter is copyright based).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  It is a bit surprising that the general tenor of the post suggests that the national law of foreign countries may be used against US businesses in those countries in matters pertaining to laws such as patent law, and that such US businesses might be surprised at the application of such laws to their in-country activities.
  
  You didn't even read the post, did you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2011 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course I read it. What makes you think I did not?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
william (profile), 7 Mar 2011 @ 11:51am

I pointed this out like, 2 years ago and it's all slowly coming true. I just have a few opinions with the whole thing

1. The IEEE article seems quite fixated on win rate. Apparently the win rate is a concern. But it shouldn't be. Are we assuming that all claims are valid? Such that if you lose your case, win rate is down and that signifies a problem? The article also suggest that the new IP court is putting out more professional and consistent ruling. This tells me that the number of false claims are increasing and that's why the win rate is dropping.

2. Why are the Americans crying because they are not winning? This just tells everyone that US are not interested in fairness or IP protection. They are just interested in winning their own cases. What they really want, is a puppet IP court that rules all their cases as valid. Now that an actual court is set up which the US has no power over and (i am assuming) ruling more professional and fairly, they cry foul. Geez, the world is not as perfect as you would like to believe eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DSecrist, 16 Mar 2011 @ 1:26pm

Be Careful What You Wish For: Taiwan Using US Pressured Patent Laws Against US Companies
It might be important to remember, that the US Chamber of Commerce is dominated by member Inc.'s which are para-national in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]