I have not followed it closely so I cannot comment in detail on any of the specifics. The first question I would have is whether the royalties were correctly set.

DBH -- any comments on this patent case? http://mimesislaw.com/ipflow/markman-...

In fact it is a whole business strategy pushed by Business profs to not invent (other than incrementally) until someone else has proven the market.

In the end, the wrights spend their money on defending their patent in our not so efficient government system and finally won, but WW2 cancelled out patents, and after that the time period was up. Then the two companies joined together into Curtis-wright corporation.

I didnt relize MY thoughts are pollution, but YOURS are ok

Hello DB,
If I invent some major time saver in my machine shop without the ability to protect it, I will not disseminate it, period. Why would anyone give up their competitive advantage without incentive to do so? I have "tricks of the trade" of my own. I have survived while most of my competitors have evaporated. Nothing in this world is perfect, but I see no better alternative. The products of my mind are mine; end of story.

I only wish I had an invention that would appeal to the mass market. You can bet the first call I would make, would be to a patent attorney.
Respectfully,
O.A.

No I have overwhelming evidence on point that you ignore. SO QUIT POLLUTING THE DISCUSSION.

Inch deep. The Wright brothers were well aware and their patent covered and described ailerons - so Curtis was just a two-bit thief who wanted to steal other people's property

I think its one of the episodes on their series of american genius.

netflix documentary on it is pretty good. I think the wrights and curtis should have recognized the way the system worked, and stopped fighting and joined together to free all of them from the government patent system and get on with life. They all would have made more money and had a better life if they had done that. As I understand it, Curtis actually proposed that, but the wrights wouldnt do it.

I understand that you have strong feelings about patents, being in that business. My point is that its not a very efficient system at protecting intellectual property rights. The net result is not the promotion of commerce, but the stifling of it and innovation. Particularly in the current situation with patent trolls who attempt to patent everything just to gain some monopoly advantages. I am not ignoring evidence, but in my humble experience, these results are pretty easy to see.

as I understand it, he had separate ailerons, whereas wright just twisted the wings. I agree that given the system, they should have gotten together, which, s I understand it curtis wanted to do , but wrights said no.
My point really was that the patent system actually worked to prevent innovation in the end, while draining the wrights of their money and curtis of his time.

" the WRight brothers, one can see that their love for patents drove them into bankruptcy and death"
I had not heard about this case. Was seeing royalties on the patents just a bad business decision, not the faults of patents as a concept? Couldn't they have enforced the patents they could, accepted not being able to enforce the patents on Curtis' work, and focused on developing new technology that they could patent and enforce? (I don't know the answer. This is the first I'd heard of it. It would be interesting to read a book on it.)

Curtis should have paid for the invention that he wanted to steal.

You make blanket statements without any evidence (except for the BS made up by Austrians) and then you ignore the evidence presented. Quite polluting the post.

I can read just fine. I object to the use of patents to stifle innovation, which I think they do. STrikes me as cronyism where for a certain period of time (arbitrary), you get a monopoly even if you a patent troll and just want to stifle other people from making money on things that THEY invent on their own.
I understand your point about inventors not wanting to invest money if others can just copy what they do. Just not so sure patents are the way to deal with that problem. Seems like there are unintended consequences with the patent system that stifle innovation more than protect it.

god documentary on netflix on this. My point is that the wrights wasted their lives on trying to enforce patents to prevent curtis from making improvements the wrights didnt come up with.

Curtis and wrights should have gotten together and made something really good. Curtis' innovations are the ones we still use today, which were allowed really only after wright's patents ran out.

Actually look into the facts. The Wright brothers created all sorts of value and Curtis was just a thief.

You do not understand property rights or economics nor can you read.

But, if one looks at the WRight brothers, one can see that their love for patents drove them into bankruptcy and death, while Curtis advanced the art of manned flight many times more than the Wrights did and won out in the end.

patents simply prevent people from making and doing things that someone else has paid the system to protect them. These days, it has little to do with protecting intellectual property. Patent trolls are just in a racket.

"all great uncommercialized ideas are not a dime a dozen"
Yes. Ideas certainly are cheap, but those may not be great ones.
" you need property rights to justify spending the money to commercialize"
And it now occurs to me that researching new inventions and commercializing them are part of the same ecosystem. When a business puts effort into inventing something, it calculates in the chance that someone else may commercialize it and license the technology from you. When you license someone else's technology, you feel like you're doing the real work, but you wouldn't be doing it without the invention and the the inventor wouldn't have invented it without the chance you'd license it.

I thought you would get pissed and start shouting. There is a huge difference between a dictatorship without liberty and a constitutional representative republic. Quite a bit of freedom is needed to have the conditions necessary for the free thought necessary to invent. So you believe that the reason for great inventions is the coercive hand of government. In fact patent law has kept improvements of many things from happening except in personal use cases. I have read that a famous case was the steam locomotive which languished without improvements for 70 years because of patents. In my field of mathematics and chemistry, I have found that, as in the Soviet Union where excellent mathematics and chemistry was done as long as there was liberty to do so, it was done but not always necessarily ordered by the state. One physicist whose work I like finally was able to emigrate to the USA in the 70s or 80s. In Russia he was only permitted to write encyclopedia articles but that did not stop him from doing his own thinking. In the US he was able to write his books and do physics and math with whatever his contract with a university allowed and other work on his own time.
As for that stay off the post crap, you are showing the true believer stuff that shows up now and then, or maybe you are just saying that you would not have me reply to any of your future posts? Which is it? I hope you do not have the authority to have posters removed from this blog. If galtsgulchonline.com is you blog let me know and I will kindly retreat to other matters.

Really then why is north korea or the middle east not full of inventors and great inventions.

If you can't read please stay off the post.