Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago
    well, how ya been widget? no weeping over Reason Magazine using emotion and faith to advance their anti-patent agenda. I only got three minutes into the the video and I couldn't address all the lies and distortions that would make a main stream outlet look objective. I'll hit on the main points.

    I will start with the conclusion. Often, people do not want to pay inventors for their inventions. true story. throughout history.


    On the statement by the defendant in the case and a so-called "expert" that the technology infringed is not unique:
    Nowhere in the first three minutes of the video are the most crucial questions an Objectivist would ask discussed. 1. did he do a simple search before he developed his app? (would you build a house on land you did not have clear title to?) 2. "technology has been around since the 80s" if this is true, case closed. use that earlier technology and you are not infringing. oh, but he really wants the up to date stuff. and it falls under the category of getting "paid". Important in a business model. how to get paid. worth something. that has value. does the auto maker steal metal because he doesn't like the cost of steel?? 3. Before this story begins and within the first three minutes, the word "troll" is used many times. The assumption of guilt on the part of the patent owner/inventor has already been decided. "Patent Trolls" are Edison, Tesla, every major US manufacturing company, universities. and another like analogy would be in the entertainment industry, writers. 4. The "expert" in this video has a BS in journalism and a JD. Not an engineer, not a patent attorney, -can't understand the facts because of the underlying technology and hasn't passed the patent bar, so doesn't understand the law. It's like asking a mechanic to comment on a nuclear power plant design. It would have been EASY for Reason magazine to pick an actual expert in this field. Their choice to NOT do so, is suspect. and this "expert" works for Mark Cuban, owner of Dallas Mavericks, and wants to abolish all patents. btw, he became wealthy based off of his intellectual property in the 90s. I am not a journalist, found this out in 30 seconds in a simple google search. (Reason Magazine-you should be ashamed of yourselves.)

    The framers/founders of the US PURPOSELY set up a system to allow inventors to thrive SEPARATELY from manufacturers. Ah, the founders favored patent "trolls." Independent inventors are consistent with Adam Smith's division of labor theory. Does Reason magazine address this? (sound of crickets on the plain).

    Finally, I want to address the assumption that sleazy litigation tactics are used by so-called "trolls." East Texas is an area of the country where court cases advance quickly. Less time=less cost. For both sides. "$29B in lawsuit judgements a year is a toll on our economy." The "toll" is the theft. Failure to pay for others intellectual property, which btw often entails years and millions, sometimes billions of dollars to develop should at least be discussed here. The fact is, the number of patent lawsuits has remained static over the last 15 years (Expert Judge Michel, recently retired from the CAFC as lead judge in patent lawsuits). It's in the news alot right now, because industries are working out the disruptive advances in android technology..

    I will end with my first statement: People don't like to pay for inventions. throughout history. Because our Constitution included inventors' rights, our nation became the most powerful nation in the world in under 150 years. That was not a mistake.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo