Galt's Gulch

patent law and trolls .......

Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago to Technology
8 comments | Share | Flag

k and dbhalling will give us the inside skinny here!!! -- j

SOURCE URL: http://humanevents.com/2015/05/01/intellectual-property-issues-are-too-important-for-name-calling/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Ibecame 8 years, 11 months ago
    This was a very concise article. What it leaves out in the reality of life is that filing and holding on to an original idea like "Rearden Metal" is like recovering a fumble at the Super Bowl only to discover that in the confusion and desire to GET THE BALL, all of the members of both teams have now dog piled on top of you for their own profit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago
      it actually is full of mis-statements and loaded language which the author pretends he is trying to avoid.
      there is no such thing as "balancing" rights. that very language means that individuals do not have rights, they have privileges useful to society. That is not the basis for natural rights and not Objectivist.
      "litigation explosion" is a loaded phrase without any cite and in fact is wrong and proven by multiple studies which links are on this site. Heartland Institute has knowledge of these studies and continues to pedal false information.
      His statements regarding lawyers crossing over into patent litigation has no cite and I find find it specious. Most patent litigators are either patent attorneys or corporate. and if they are corporate they are being advised by patent attorneys. You can not "cross-over" into patent attorney without an 1. engineering or technical degree, 2. you have to pass a special bar exam-separate from the regular 3. a patent attorney passes the regular bar and the patent bar (which btw, has an extremely low pass rate). so-do you think there's alot of cross-over lawyering?
      my question to you: when you have a group that consistently lies (think global warming) about important things like property rights, why would you "believe" anything they say?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Ibecame 8 years, 11 months ago
        Having come from an industry that revolved around patents, copyrights and the most effective, proprietary information, I can't disagree with you. I did take note, like you did that the author didn't really understand what is going on, and has been going on with intellectual property. It was better written than a lot of articles I have read on the subject, and I have found few people that have any understanding of the subject what-so-ever. Like you I caught the errors, but passed over them thinking no one else would catch them ( I had a manager that crossed over from Engineering to become a Patent Attorney, and have filed patents myself).

        The bottom line is that everything you said was correct. I'm impressed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 11 months ago
    This article makes a number of mistakes: 1) there is not a litigation explosion, 2) rights are not balanced, this is an inherently utilitarian point of view. The author does not believe in or understand property rights. Like the Austrians, which I believe the author is one, he thinks property "rights" are just socially useful devices for distributing scarce resources - he believes in the greatest good for the greatest number. Rand has many quotes on this utilitarian point of view, for example:

    “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

    This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

    What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

    If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

    There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

    But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

    The Ayn Rand Column “Textbook of Americanism,”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
      Dale, you are hinting at -- and when you come back
      may directly say -- that only the individual can determine
      what is "the good" for them, at the time and in the
      specific regard. . when we bought a car a month ago,
      they said that we could get a 6-month warranty "for free"
      and we didn't want it, being 300 miles from home.
      we bargained for a $400 reduction in price
      and got it. . better deal, for us -- we have another
      car. . others might have thought different. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 11 months ago
    Pretending that a very complex problem of what is and is not legitimate IP is a cut and dried armchair philosophy issue is not remotely helpful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 11 months ago
    While protecting intellectual property is crucial, I do have a problem with software patents. The article says "All knowledge builds on prior knowledge", but in the area of software we look at a problem and come up with a solution. Often is is something similar to what another skilled designer would do. Such things are not what patents were designed for.

    Sadly, patents have been issued for obvious software design so while you may think you are bringing your own design to the market, the road you are traveling on may have IED's buried ready to blow you up.

    That's why I advocate copyright for protection of software, not patents.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo