While at Google, Lee wrote a blog explaining her views of patent reform.
The current system too easily allows damages to be assessed based on the value of the whole product often containing many features — not just the value of the innovation of the allegedly infringed patent — which means the threat of potentially massive awards forces defendants to settle. Balance should be restored by requiring damages to be based on the value of the innovation’s contribution to the product…Passage of patent reform is long overdue. – Michelle Lee, Google
As TechDirt noted after Lee gave a speech about patent reform last year, this may be the first time that the patent system will be run by someone who isn’t of the belief that more patents somehow mean a better system.
I can’t recall ever seeing a head of the patent office open to even recognizing that patents are not the be-all and end-all of innovation. I can’t recall ever seeing a head of the patent office even willing to admit that there could be costs to the patent system that need to be weighed against the benefits. For the most part, they’ve tended to just want to expand the patent system on the assumptions that “patent = good; more patents = better.” So this kind of speech was actually both surprising and refreshing. – TechDirt
