“Patentees sometimes use fraudulently procured patents to secure illegal monopolies, excluding efficient competitors and raising prices to consumers. While antitrust doctrine condemns the acquisition of monopoly power through fraudulently procured patents, antitrust liability hinges on whether the monopolist actually “enforced” the patent. Despite the critical importance of the definition of patent enforcement for antitrust law, no scholarship or commentary exists that addresses what conduct constitutes patent enforcement. Without explanation, lower courts have narrowly defined patent enforcement to mean either filing an infringement lawsuit or explicitly threatening to do so. This Article explains how monopolists with fraudulently procured patents have exploited this narrow conception of patent enforcement in order to effectively exclude competitors without triggering antitrust scrutiny.
“This Article argues that whenever a monopolist exercises the exclusionary power of a patent, it is in fact effectively enforcing the patent for antitrust purposes. The Article concludes that courts must broaden their conception of “patent enforcement” to include, depending on context, publicly flaunting one’s patent, publicly stating a general intent to sue infringers, accusing competitors of infringement, threatening competitors’ business partners, and licensing activities. Courts currently do not consider these actions to ever constitute patent enforcement. As a result, the current interpretation of the enforcement requirement for antitrust purposes renders patent fraud cost-beneficial. Absent antitrust liability, it is rational for a monopolist to commit fraud on the PTO, maintain the patent as an ever-present threat, and simply not actively enforce it. These are not incentives that either patent law or antitrust law should create. Expanding the definition of patent enforcement will close the loophole that currently allows firms to acquire and exercise illegal monopoly power through the acquisition of fraudulently procured patents.”
The Lyme crooks’ (ALDF.com’s) “Patents of Damocles,” (enforcing “LYMErix was a vaccine” via claiming the falsified case definition, “Dearborn was real” and vice-versa; Dearborn is also enforced by bogus IDSA “guidelines” on Lyme; the “guidelines” are a way of enforcing the false claim that OspA was a vaccine, and that Dearborn was not research fraud) is ALSO about how the Lyme crooks have cost America in lives and money – and inhibited important discovery…. MRSA!
“In the United States, S. aureus causes each year 3.4 million community-acquired diseases and 460,000 hospital-acquired infections. Antibiotic-resistant MRSA infections (7% of community- and 22% of hospital-acquired staphylococcal disease) are associated with poor clinical outcomes and represent a frequent cause of mortality (1).”
OspA was never a vaccine and no one from ILADS.org fought this cabal, ever, over anything. They never complained to the FDA, they never complained to the DOJ, they never formally complained to anyone about anything having to do with OspA or the fraudulent Dearborn case definition.
Here Pat Smith of the LDA brought Donald Marks to the FDA on Jan 2002 to tell them about how SmithKline would not allow adverse events of the “multi-system, neurologic” type to be reported, as a vaccine trial administrator:
. But ILADS.org never had anything to say, ever. ‘Either about the disease mechanisms about the vaccine victims being just like chronic Lyme (because it is actually an AIDS like disease called post-sepsis syndrome or CVID). .
nobody who is employed by the HHS.gov (which includes the CDC, the FDA and all the National Institutes) are aware of it, and told me on the phone that they dont know what OspA is, in the Spring of 2012.
NOBODY knows!! what OspA is, but they all said it was a vaccine.
Great, tell that to all the people who lost loved ones or limbs to MRSA.
“We’re the CDC and we dont know!!
“Thanks, have a nice day with that new prosthetic!!
“Oh, and we think you still have a significant hospital bill remaining. Good luck with that,… with your post-sepsis syndrome disability, heh, heh. And Remember to pay your taxes for our salaries, too, as well as MRSA HQ, AKA the hospital.
“We’re only interested in MRSA when we occasionally tell everyone to wash their hands. We’re the CDC. We prevent diseases. Just dont ask us about any diseases. . “We dont know! and we really dont care. What do you think this is? We’re only here because we want some insight on the next big thing the FDA will approve as a drug so we can buy that stock. And if you’re not as smart as us regarding how to pad your retirement income by doing nothing for a do-nothing dot gov department or agency, that is your own fault. This is America.”