Patent fallacies

Another patent misconception, from what I understand, is that an unenforced
patent becomes invalid.  It is said that PKP is "forced" to go after PGP
because if they don't their patent will lose its force.
 
Several days ago Tom Morrow on the Extropians list said that this doctrine
applies to trademarks but not to patents.  Patents have a fixed 17 year
lifetime and failure to enforce against one user does not preclude the
patent owner from enforcing against another.  The folklore about the loss of
intellectual property rights that we are all familiar with (aspirin, zippers,
etc.) are all cases of trademark losses.
 
Tom is a law student, not a lawyer; also, I am a few days behind on my
Extropians reading so I don't know whether any follow-ups or corrections
were posted since his message.  But this principle seems to be in accordance
with what was posted here about selective enforcement of patents.
 
If this is in fact how patents behave, it is one less justification for
PKP's heavy-handed enforcement efforts against PGP.  It means that PKP could
choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without
losing any rights to enforce against others.  It would be interesting to
hear an authoritative opinion on this from a lawyer.
 
Hal

>It means that PKP could
>choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without
>losing any rights to enforce against others.  

This is correct as stated.  I don't think that loss of patent is a
motivation, though, for the suppression of PGP.  I think it is
perceived to cut into licensing revenues.

PKP is a partnership of MIT, Stanford, RSADSI, and Cylink.  Those
first two academic institutions are out to make money, plain and
simple, from their patent portfolio.  They are large corporations and
behave like such.  The other two companies are smaller and are more
accessible, but also have investors and a default requirement to make
money for their shareholders.

Any lobbying for better licensing practice needs to extend beyond just
Jim Bidzos to the owners of all these companies.  I presume that
Stanford and MIT both have patent licensing offices, and that each
also has a representative assigned to a particular patent account.  It
would be extremely beneficial to know the names of these people.  They
may be able to speak publicly where PKP is bound by confidentiality
agreements; PKP, remember, is in a subordinate position with respect
to its owners.

List of principals and investors in RSADSI and Cylink would also be
useful.

Eric