Robert Merges quoted in USA Today, August 27, 2012
“The smart money is going to say this is the end of Act One, we’ve teed it up for the federal circuit, and we’ll see what’s on for Act Two,” says Robert Merges of Boalt Law School at the University of California, Berkeley…. “The bottom line is (that Apple has) shown the world that they are going to use these patents, and you better keep a wide berth, or get out of the mobile market.”
Robert Barr and Robert Merges quoted in The New York Times, August 24, 2012
Robert Barr, executive director of the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology, said that the user interface — the icons and other features that users see and touch — of the Nokia Windows phones look distinctly different from the iPhone. Nokia, a longtime maker of phones, also has a thick portfolio of patents to protect itself.
While Google is not involved in this case, Apple was clearly going after Android all along, said Robert P. Merges, professor of law and technology at University of California Berkeley School of Law…. “There are a lot more players in the Android world who could be involved in the future in litigation,” he said. “And it’s going to raise the cost of everyone in the Android system if the damages stick.”
Robert Merges quoted in Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2012
UC Berkeley law professor Robert Merges said Oracle is looking to cut itself into the lucrative smartphone market with the Java technology that Sun Microsystems created in the mid-1990s to write programs that work on different operating systems and devices. “People have been whispering for years that Google has built a great business on other people’s technology,” Merges said. “But Larry Ellison doesn’t beat around the bush. He has never minded stepping onto center stage.”
Robert Merges quoted in Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2012
“Sun was fairly altruistic in their views about intellectual property assertion and ownership. Some people will see it as a sad day that the Java system built by people who wanted to have it used very widely and weren’t thinking about monetizing it has now become a big fat corporate asset,” UC Berkeley law professor Robert Merges said.
Concurring Opinions blog, December 9, 2011 by Gordon Hull
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/book-review-mergess-justifying-intellectual-property.html#more-54238
<http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/book-review-mergess-justifying-intellectual-property.html%23more-54238>
“I disagree with the general thesis that property rights over information are a bad idea or that IP has mutated into a gargantuan, monstrous parody of its traditional moderate form. In an economy where intangible assets are more valuable than ever, IP is more important than ever.”
Patently-O, October 14, 2011 by Dennis Crouch
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/10/merges-justifying-intellectual-property.html
Merges believes that utilitarianism is important to intellectual property…. As Merges writes in his introduction “[m]aximizing utility, I have come to see, is not a serviceable first-order principle of the IP system. It is just not what IP is really all about at the deepest level.”
AllBusiness, September 19, 2011 by Don Sadler
http://www.allbusiness.com/finance/legal/16680947-1.html
Robert Merges, a professor of law at University of California, Berkeley, noted in a San Francisco Chronicle article that this provision gives inventors one year to hone their inventions after disclosure.
Pamela Samuelson, the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology, agreed: “The ‘little guy’ inventor story that this rule favors big firms is really a myth.”
-Chicago Tribune, August 16, 2011 by Ameet Sachdev
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0816-motorola-phone-patents–20110816,0,6973280.story
“It’s an escalation of the patent wars,” said Robert Merges, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California at Berkeley. “Google is raising the stakes.”
-Chicago Tribune, August 16, 2011 by Wailin Wong
http://bit.ly/puNXuY
“If you’re an employee or somebody hoping Motorola stays in the game and stays as a corporate presence, this may not be good news for you,” Merges said.
Patently-O, August 5, 2011 by Robert Merges, Pam Samuelson, and Ted Sichelman
http://bit.ly/mZ95cm
First, our study only applies to U.S. startup companies. Second, many executives—particularly those in the biotechnology and medical device industries—reported that patents provide strong or moderate incentives to innovate. In the very least, prompt patent grants for these companies would not be “irrelevant” to stimulating innovation. Last, our responses on the role of patents in the innovation process relates to the patent system as it is currently constituted.
-Patently-O, July 19, 2011 by Robert Merges, Pam Samuelson, and Ted Sichelman
http://bit.ly/dc4GOo
The 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey has found that startups are patenting more than previous studies have suggested; that patents are being sought for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is to prevent copying of the innovation; and that there are considerable differences among startups in the perceived significance of patents for attaining competitive advantage, with biotech companies rating them as the most important strategy and software companies rating them least important.
-Patently-O, July 20, 2011 by Robert Merges, Pam Samuelson, and Ted Sichelman
http://bit.ly/bmJ4nB
Biotechnology companies report that patents provide closer to a “moderate” than a “strong” incentive to engage in the innovation process. Among software companies, the results are even more striking, with them reporting that patents provide less than a “slight” incentive. These findings raise questions about the importance of patents to innovation for entrepreneurs and startups. Indeed, the results have spurred some vigorous debate in the blogosphere.
-Patently-O, July 21, 2011 by Robert Merges, Pam Samuelson, and Ted Sichelman
http://bit.ly/blIB2W
One possible interpretation is that startup executives are generally unaware of the link between patents and success in the innovative process, which results in financial markets selecting those companies that patent more heavily. Another interpretation is that patents serve important functions not related to the innovation process, such as helping to prevent infringement lawsuits, providing leverage in cross-licensing negotiations, and acting as “signals” of firm competency, which drive investment.