Google is a massive company that often throws its weight to take patented technology without payment under the guise of fighting patent trolls.
Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial.
Patent cases can easily take decades to complete an span multiple jurisdictions, and google has been involved in several such cases, meaning the original patents are now quite outdated compared to modern technology despite their original applicability.
After ex google executive Michelle Lee became head of the US Patent Office, the PTO has been more favorable to patent infringement in my opinion.
Google has settled many patent cases over the years, surely some of them were valid patents.
> If you go to trial, it's some unsophisticated jurors who decide if the patent is valid. For a reexam, it's PTO people, who at least know what the law is.
Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury? The PTO reviewers are hardly more knowledgeable about technical fields than juries. Somehow 64% of reviews end up with changes, is this not a sign that the PTO has been all to regularly changing its mind about valid patents?
To be clear I have never been involved in any sort of litigation against google, patent related or otherwise. I just think the pendulum has swung too far against patents. I could have instead argued that Apple or other companies are also very oppressive against patents.
I do agree many software patents are not applicable and are often spam, but there are real costs to decreasing patent rights outside of software