Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act - Revision history

Julia at 19:08, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T19:08:43Z

Julia at 18:20, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:20:16Z

Julia at 21:42, 31 August 2016

2016-08-31T21:42:41Z

DylanDickens at 21:59, 21 June 2016

2016-06-21T21:59:27Z

MarcelaInteriano at 17:06, 9 June 2016

2016-06-09T17:06:43Z

MarcelaInteriano at 17:06, 9 June 2016

2016-06-09T17:06:10Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)''' The TROL Act was introduced on April 28, 2015, by Representative Michael Bu..."

2016-06-01T21:21:20Z

Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)''' The TROL Act was introduced on April 28, 2015, by Representative Michael Bu..."

imported>Albert: /* Dissenting */

2016-03-13T17:48:09Z

Dissenting

imported>Albert: /* Demand Letters */

2016-03-08T21:12:46Z

Demand Letters

imported>Albert: /* Costs to Economy */

2016-03-07T21:48:54Z

Costs to Economy

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]
-[[Category: Internal]]
+[[Category: Public]]
-[[Internal Classification::Legislation| ]]
+[[Public Classification::Legislation| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 2 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~[[Category: Internal]]~~
−	~~[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]~~
−
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

Line 63:		Line 60:

	One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]		One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]
		+
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation\| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 31 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]
		+
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]
−

	'''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)'''		'''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 21 June 2016
Line 61:		Line 61:

	One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]		One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]
−
−	~~[[category:internal]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 9 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform]]	+	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 1 June 2016
Line 60:		Line 60:

	One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]		One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]
		+
		+	[[category:internal]]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ===Dissenting===
-*A reply to the letter written by 51 scholars in support of restricting patent litigation states that studies claiming large problems with patent litigation misconstrue the issues. Adam Mossoff is one of the co-authors for the reply letter. [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/03/professor-patent-reform.html]
+*A reply to the letter written by 51 scholars in support of restricting patent litigation states that studies claiming large problems with patent litigation misconstrue the issues. Adam Mossoff is one of the co-authors for the reply letter.[http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Economists-Law-Profs-Letter-re-Patent-Reform.pdf][http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/03/professor-patent-reform.html]
 *The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has stated that TROL act does not do enough in regard to patent reform for reasons listed below:

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ==Demand Letters==
-Although the official number of demand letters related to patent infringements does not exist, several online resources host example of demand letters.
+Quantifying the number of demand letters may feel like a Sisyphean task. The nature of demand letters creates a private relationship between a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or a law firm representing them and the company that allegedly infringed on a patent. These letters are mailed directly to the alleged infringer, and do not fall under a required part of discovery in the event of a lawsuit. Letters may warn or threaten a lawsuit from the PAE, but are not legally binding documents.  Although the official number of demand letters related to patent infringements does not exist, several online resources host example of demand letters.
 *[https://trollingeffects.org Trolling Effects]
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ===Costs to Economy===
-Bessen & Meurer (2012) estimate that non-practicing entities have accrued $29 million of direct costs to businesses during 2011.[http://www.pcworld.com/article/258395/patent_trolls_cost_tech_companies_29_billion_last_year_study_says.html][http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091210##] "The authors used a database of 1,630 patent troll lawsuits compiled by Patent Freedom. Because many of the lawsuits had multiple defendants, there was a total of 4,114 plaintiff-defendant pairs. The median defendant over all of these pairs lost $20.4 million in market capitalization, while the mean loss was $122 million."[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks/]
+Bessen & Meurer (2012) estimate that patent asserting entitites non-practicing entities have accrued $29 million of direct costs to businesses during 2011.[http://www.pcworld.com/article/258395/patent_trolls_cost_tech_companies_29_billion_last_year_study_says.html][http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091210##] "The authors used a database of 1,630 patent troll lawsuits compiled by Patent Freedom. Because many of the lawsuits had multiple defendants, there was a total of 4,114 plaintiff-defendant pairs. The median defendant over all of these pairs lost $20.4 million in market capitalization, while the mean loss was $122 million."[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks/]
 The two Boston University faculty members have also published a book, ''Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk'' [http://www.amazon.com/Patent-Failure-Bureaucrats-Lawyers-Innovators/dp/069113491X/arstech-20], where they claim patent trolls "cost publicly traded defendants $500 billion since 1990."[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks/]