"The original intent behind the IPR process was solid and the reasons for its original passage well-intended. Sadly, the reality of the Another necessary amendment addresses the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process. Simply put the IPR system, codified only in 2012 is a new and unnecessary review process which stands between a patent holder and the ability for them to commercialize their intellectual property. The IPR process was conceived to be a secondary review process - after the patent is granted - allowing any third party to call into question the validity of the approved patent."

Yes, IPRs do stand between, because the patents are worthless untill they pass the IPR vidility test. Who in their right mind would invest efforts to commercialize patents if they then prove to be worthless in an IPR vadility test?

"The original intent behind the IPR process was solid and the reasons for its original passage well-intended. Sadly, the reality of the implementation is far from that. The "outside third parties" are not the originally intended think tanks, university professors and other parties focused on the "common good". Rather there have been numerous examples of unscrupulous investors leveraging the IPR process in conjunction with the public stock of the affected company which applied for the patent, not to improve the common good but simply to enrich themselves."

Could some one explain those two oddly differing points of view form the same author?

With that, how do unscrupulous investors leverage the IPR process in conjunction with the public stock ???

Amazing stuff, EDIG is gaining a foot hold, lets change the game rules again.

doni