A legal document storage company has launched a service that will allow teams of lawyers to examine disputed intellectual property assets in a monitored, secure room. Software would be examinable on a laptop with printing and networking disabled, it said. Legal archiving company Iron Mountain said that it is launching the …
Would increase litigation not descrease it
Firstly IP = Trademarks + Copyright + Patents and of those only Patents require secrecy and would need ESCROW.
If a company is falsely accused of infringing a patent, they get their money BACK from the company who sued them. The only money that can be saved therefore is the money spend by an litigant. So it helps the accuser target their attacks better for maximum profit.
The company being accused can see their own code and see the patent and determine if there is a risk of the lawsuit being successful. There is no gain to them from showing their trade secrets this way, because any costs of the lawsuit they can get back when they win.
The company that sues does not know the other companies secrets, this helps them know if they have zero chance in court. But as such they can save their attack fee and go after a different company.
They do it for money, or to block a competitor from the market place. They are not interested in whether their patents have been reasonably infringed, they are only interested in whether the lawsuit will be profitable or not. By revealing the info, this helps the attacker judge the amount to spend on the lawsuit before calling it quits.
Anything that aids an patent litigant to minimize the false accusations, encourages litigation, because it means they can lower their costs by lowering the cost of a false accusation.
Making it easier...
... for BOFH to dispose of people too.
Why not use a desktop PC (don't install a network card, then you don't need to *disable* anything.
The PC should be in a locked cabinet so you can't get at those USB (or any other) ports.
Don't forget the roofies too so no-one with a good memory can write down the source later on.
Will the people examining it...
... also be searched for hidden cameras etc?
(And will they be tested to see if they have a photographic memory...?)
@Would increase litigation not descrease it
> Firstly IP = Trademarks + Copyright + Patents and of those only Patents require secrecy and would need ESCROW
No. You missed off Trade Secrets - which is the only one that requires secrecy! Patents are publicly filed. (There are other kinds of "IP" too, e.g. masks for semiconductor manufacturing have special protection; the EU "database right", etc).
Software source code is usually protected both by copyright and as a trade secret (and sometimes by patents too). This is the sort of thing that they are likely to make available in this way.
> There is no gain to [The company being accused] from showing their trade secrets
If there's a court order, they may not get a choice about showing them. This way, at least they can stop their adversary from "accidentally" leaking the secrets onto the internet, or from ripping off their secrets and using them wholesale in their future products. (There are usually protections in the court order that are meant to prevent that sort of thing; but making it physically impossible has got to be better).
I disagree - it's too expensive for getting get rid of people.
However, it would a most excellent way to get rid of lawyers / solicitors / &c.
So, the people who are reviewing the source code would not have access to networking, their own computer, or paper and pencil to take notes? They would be reduced to coming in to view the evidence, then leaving to write notes, repeat?
How is releasing the information one headful at a time less damaging than releasing it freely? Or is this a dodge to 'technically' comply with the court order, without giving the opposing part a chance to actually review the information in a meaningful way?
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire