• Rich Barlow

    Senior Writer

    Photo: Headshot of Rich Barlow, an older white man with dark grey hair and wearing a grey shirt and grey-blue blazer, smiles and poses in front of a dark grey backdrop.

    Rich Barlow is a senior writer at BU Today and Bostonia magazine. Perhaps the only native of Trenton, N.J., who will volunteer his birthplace without police interrogation, he graduated from Dartmouth College, spent 20 years as a small-town newspaper reporter, and is a former Boston Globe religion columnist, book reviewer, and occasional op-ed contributor. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 18 comments on BU Sues Leading Tech Firms for Patent Infringement

    1. Why would you think that companies would not try to find the best talent to hire just because the University was suing them for patent infringement. It certainly does not hurt the University financially.

      Such action only hurts the company (assuming there are good prospective employees here) and the students.

    2. They don’t recruit here anyways, only across the river… Although, I actually doubt they’ll seriously bar recruitment from BU forever. If our faculty and students are coming up with such innovative technology, don’t you think those companies would like to retain our human capital?

    1. That article is only tangentially relevant. Patent trolls do not invent – they just obtain other peoples patents and use them to sue infringers. They also prey on smaller companies that will settle, because they do not have the legal or monetary resources to endure a legal battle. Not to mention that NPEs typically leverage vague and over-broad software patents – again, patents that they did not file.

      1. I’m sorry Cocobuff, but it is extremely relevant. Intellectual Ventures is widely considered to be a “patent troll” or NPE. They have over 2,000 internal inventions, very few of which they put into practice. Many of their acquired patents come from universities (e.g. http://www.nature.com/news/universities-struggle-to-make-patents-pay-1.13811 ). Boston University could sell to IV and make some money, or it can risk the legal battle itself and possibly make more money, or lose its cases and not make money. There is little difference between BU enforcing the patent and IV enforcing the patent.

        You claim NPEs only act in software patents, which shows your lack of knowledge in this area. The paper you claim is “tangentially relevant” shows that only 22% of the targets of NPE lawsuits are software companies. 78% of targets produce tangible goods.

    2. Yeah, this is definitely not a patent troll situation. They’re being pursued by the actual entity that developed the inventions and these aren’t obscenely generic “inventions” (like the case of the online shopping cart).

  1. How much did it cost to retain law firm ofShore Chan DePumpo?
    Couldn’t this money have been used for to promote the the research of the faculty more effectively?
    …or for scholarships?

  2. It’s nice to see that BU is finally protecting its patents (and the very large profits rightly to be made from them) in a more aggressive manner. If they had been doing this from the start, BU itself would probably be more well off in both its reputation and finances. Unfortunately because they waited so long and these products are so commonplace now, they appear petty and like they’re trying to take down giants, when they’re really just trying to get what’s owed.

  3. This is why the patent system is broken and needs to be fixed. First of all, what is reasonable compensation? Based on the date of this patent, why is it still protected? This is what stifles creativity and advancement. Universities and professors should be fairly compensated and recognized for their discoveries however it only a small piece of the puzzle. Since universities don’t build products and make anything, why should they profit from the commercialization? The point of a university is to research for the sake of learning, expanding knowledge and possibly prestige.

  4. A lot of you fail to understand why patent laws exist. There has to be an economic incentive to invent or nobody would bother. One of the reasons that the US has historically been a global leader in research, development, and innovation is that our intellectual property rights have historically been very strong (relatively). If we don’t protect the rights of inventors, nobody will innovate. It’s as simple as that.

    1. What actual data do you have to support that view? And are you suggesting that university research would evaporate if schools were unable to sue others? Seriously? All motivation to get grants, publish, be recognized, get tenure, etc., etc. — all go away simply because their employer can’t sue?

  5. Well, think about all these discoveries made in universities labs and used by these companies. The fact that they have been made through academic research shall not prevent the high tech companies from paying the royalties due to the inventors.

  6. Why all this debate? Bottom Line:

    1) This Prof. invented and patented this technology.
    2) These commercial companies used this technology without proper permission.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *