Big Patent Holders & Big Patent Law Firms Bring Judges To Belgium For Boondoggle...
from the conflict-of-interest? dept
Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to the troubling news that an organization of patent holders has organized a conference and is flying in a bunch of judges who deal with patent issues from around the globe to hang out with them at a conference for a few days. As Kevin Outterson notes, this seems like a major conflict of interest:Does anyone see a conflict of interest when the world’s richest patent owners fly judges from all over the world to a 3-day conference in Brussels? Here's the lede:I agree that this is quite troubling. The conference is being organized in part by perhaps the most powerful US patent judge, the chief judge of CAFC, Randall Rader. Rader's a very interesting guy, a fantastic speaker and extremely entertaining -- but he has a huge blind spot when it comes to understanding how patents are regularly used to stifle innovation. Perhaps that explains why the conference that he supposedly helped put together appears to feature none of the many top voices who are worried about where the patent system is today.Bringing nearly 100 judges from more than 30 countries to Europe. Sharing experiences among patent-experienced judges from many countries and between the patent bench and bar.This gathering won't hear from patent skeptics. The Platinum sponsors are Akin Gump, Du Pont, ExxonMobil, Finnegan, P&G and Johnson & Johnson. The program committee is unabashedly pro-IP. No voice for the public domain; MSF, Oxfam, Jamie Love, Sean Flynn and other public interest voices aren't on the program
I'm fine with IP maximalists holding conferences; I'm worried when judges from around the planet are wined and dined while hearing only a pro-IP point of view.
Perhaps even more troubling, as Outterson points out, is that this conference -- again, supposedly with Rader's support -- is being sold to patent lawyers (who have to pay $1475 plus travel and lodging to attend) as a way to get access to the very judges who will be handling their cases:
Conference attendees will have an opportunity to share experiences with nearly one hundred judges from around the world. Beginning with a welcome reception on Monday, judges will attend sessions and social events with intellectual property law attorneys and other interested parties.As Outterson notes, this "sounds like buying social access to IP judges to me." It seems shameful that Rader would allow his name and reputation to be used for such things. It's equally shameful that USPTO boss David Kappos is appearing at the event. Again, it's fine to have events discussing IP issues, and even fine for patent system supporters to put together their own conferences. But it's troubling when the event is presented as a way to access judges, and all of the sponsors and organizers seem to have a particular view on the state of patent law today, which is seriously contrasted by actual evidence and research in the market.
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: conference, conflict of interest, judges, patents, randall rader
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, I did not read anything in the linked conference announcement that limited attendance to only a specific group. Maybe this is the case, but the announcement does not say this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW, judges, more than anyone else, are particularly aware of conflict of interest matters. When they attend conferences such matters are thoroughly vetted beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who on the committee who puts this together or among the speakers has expressed any skepticism concerning the patent system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the judges getting free attendance to this event be liable for influence peddling charges for accepting free gifts of travel and lodging unless they pay the same fee the IP lawyers have to pay to attend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future cases
Does anyone have a list of attending judges? I would love to see this list made available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should've had an infomercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You might have to come up with some sort of pro-patent guise to get your foot in the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The man's name is Randall Rader.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/randall-r-rader-chief-judge.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dah! Stupid mistake on my part. Was typing fast and had a brain fart. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
Um. That's not the point, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
Maybe it is. Maybe IP maximalists will always have a greater share of the money on their side, simply because their philosophy favours fewer, larger organizations over more, smaller ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rader
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rader
I've heard him say the same thing, but I still think he's a great speaker and very entertaining. You can be entertaining and still be wrong.
Anyone who has a 'blind spot' on how innovation is harmed by patents, and who as a judge, let alone as an organizing judge, would participate in a conference like this is neither smart nor blind, he is an assault on all who believe that law should serve everyone and not just other rich fratboys and their corporations
On that we agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rader
It has been repeated here that the CAFC is dominated by "patent attorneys", and that this creates an institutional bias in favor of patents in general. Of course, this is incorrect...but it keeps being repeated anyway.
Now we have an example of a jurist who is well familiar with all aspects of such law, but who did not begin his career as a "patent lawyer", nor is he admitted to practice, were he still in private practice, before the Bar of the USPTO.
"Patent lawyers dominate the court". "Non-patent lawyers create a gaping hole in the judicial competence of the court."
Would it not be more accurate to simply say "We do not like patents at all, and the appellate circuit for patent law is marred by the fact that some of its jurists have practiced such law and are thusly biased, and others have not practiced such law and are thusly lacking in experience."
If we were to adopt this standard across the board for appellate courts, no jurists would ever be able to measure up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rader
How does denying patent critics access to these events, but allowing patent advocates access, not create a pro-patent bias?
"Patent lawyers dominate the court". "Non-patent lawyers create a gaping hole in the judicial competence of the court."
That's not what anyone is claiming. We're saying that more diversity, allowing more patent critics to attend these events, promotes more balanced viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]