The Patent Scam
Patents are granted on _plans_ not devices. You do not need to actually create a thing to have it patented. Objectivist Vera Doerr found that problematic. I believe that unbuilt devices could deserve property rights protection, but might not have the _same_ protections as realized inventions. The essential problem is the "perpetual motion" machine. Cold fusion and Randall Mills's hydrino are two candidates that suggest transmuting the impossible into the patented.
"(Note also that his wife khalling also posts what are essentially his opinions.)"
just because people share the same opinion does not mean they don't think for themselves. For instance, two people discussing Newtonian Physics are likely to have many of the same "opinions." Your statement was intended to discredit my ability to think for myself. It was irrational and rude.
If someone displayed the ignorance in criticizing Objectivism that this article does about patent law, Objectivists would be furious. First of all it is clear that you do not know how to read a patent. You don’t know the difference between the claims and the background, you don’t know the difference between an independent claim and a dependent claim or a patent and a patent application. In fact it is clear that you did not read the patent application, which can be found here http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2014021.... If you had read the patent application and understood how patents are written, instead of the summary from the article, you would clearly have seen that the invention is not about a device which can turn into a “cell phone, a smartphone, a tablet PC, a laptop, a personal computer, a netbook, a personal digital assistant, an e-book reader, a TV and/or other computing devices...” You would have seen that this was about a device with a foldable display that takes certain action when it is folded in different ways. These actions are explained in the patent application as making or receiving a phone call, sending or receiving an electronic document, activating or deactivating a software program, and connecting to or disconnecting from a network.
Despite your ignorance of patent law, electronics technology, and the specifics of the invention, you pontificate that “the technology behind it (the invention) would be so diverse that no material, no hardware, no software, existing today even as a theoretical prototype, could be combined into such a device.” Perhaps you are unaware that one of the requirements of a patent is the enablement requirement under 35 USC 112. It requires that the inventor explain his invention in enough detail that one skilled in the art be able to practice the invention. But you don’t have to take my word for it, foldable displays are known, see displays http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/05/samsu.... Having a foldable display that when folded in a certain way receives a phone call, or sends a document, is well within the reach of today’s technology. As a patent attorney, with a BS in electrical engineering, a MS in physics, and named inventor on nine patents, I can assure that this patent application is enabled and could easily be built by one skilled in the art. Now that I have shown that to you, you will probably turn around and say it should not be patented because it is obvious, further proving your ignorance of patent law, logic, and reason.
Next you state that everyone is doing this and you “simply cannot believe this patent scam! Worse: it's actually legal!” This is clearly an appeal to emotion not logic. You continue this unsubstantiated attack on the patent system, suggesting it is a legal hold up game that people are using to get rich. Your article is worthy of a muckraking SOCIALIST journalist or a follower of Kant, Hegel, or Kierkegaard, but not someone writing on the Rebirth of Reason http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/News/3... or someone who has studied Ayn Rand.
Rand stated that Patents and Copyrights are the source of all property rights, because they protect the source of all human creation, the products of man’s mind. Patents are property rights for inventions and your attack on the patent system is really an attack on the very basis of property rights.
There is a SCAM going on here Ms. Doerr, but it is not patents.
Sincerely,
Dale B. Halling
"If they want to patent ideas why not have any S/F or fantasy novel patented as it could become real life 100 years down the road?"
That was my first thought. If he is right then why hasn't that happened? There is a clear difference also between something that is "unbuildable" and something that has not been built. It's kind of a confusing rant.
Arthur C. Clarke allegedly once wrote an essay, "How a Lost a Billion Dollars" because he invented the telecommunications satellite, but never took out a patent on the idea.
Too bad there was not one sentence of reason in the whole self-acknowledged "rant." What is interesting-I expected the link to be to one of those tech dirt ranters and it was not. Many software developers are part of that movement. She may, however, have influence with a wider O audience. So it is important to address.
2. This cited application is a fold-able screen. This technology is out there, and this application is fairly modest in its claims. Perfectly reasonable. However, it took db an hour of his time to go over the application and respond to this O.
3. If someone wrote about Objectivism with the ignorance this person shows for patent law, they would be summarily dismissed as being irrational. However, we are in a war against those who want to destroy rights for inventors. and so the time needs to be spent. If you cannot count on Objectivists to apply their own principles: i.e. "have you studied Objectivism? You don't understand the philosophy, therefore you are making ignorant and untrue statements about Objectivism," who can we count on?
This is not a rhetorical question; it started out as sarcasm, but now I'm genuinely curious as to the legal answer.