The Patently-O daily full-text e-mailer is a great resource, but it has one major problem — The e-mail readers miss the extensive commentary posted by other Patently-O readers. Over the past year, Patently-O readers have transformed the site from a primarily one-way resource into a rich community. The growth of reader comments is shown below (Graph).
Although only about 1/3 of the comments contain high-level useful commentary, this is still above-average for lawyerspeak. Like most readers, the comments also arrive primarily during business hours. (Graph).
As might be expected, the majority of comments are written under pseudonyms. Of the top-ten most frequent commentators, it appears that only one uses his real name: Michael Slonecker — a patent attorney primarily retired from practice. Malcolm Mooney, an anonymous and acerbic patent attorney is leading the pack with over 600 comments. [Mooney is likely ascorbic as well]
When comments are posted, I receive an e-mail with your IP address. Based on those addresses, the majority of comments come from law firms, quickly followed by government agencies (US Courts, USPTO, FAA, etc.) and businesses. There is also a large group of comments associated with more generic ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc.).
Three comment related projects:
- Threading of comments so that you can more easily follow various posts.
- Ranking of comments (as on SlashDot) so that you can exclude low-ranking posts.
- A comment [RSS] feed. So that you can more easily follow the most recent comments. (Thanks to Adam Kessel for this idea)
Of course, I do all the programming and configuration for Patently-O — Let me know if you have easy solutions for any of these projects! dcrouch@gmail.com.
“We could replace Malcolm Mooney by a sequence of anonymous imposter postings in his name.”
Yeah, you could do that. I look forward to hearing what our promoters of “substantive commentary” have to say about such behavior. I’m sure they’ll be very indignant.
Yep.
I admit I am uncooth and out of control.
I am also the victim of identity theft.
Can there be ingenuity in the impesonation of an imaginary person – hyper-impersonation perhaps?
We could replace Malcolm Mooney by a sequence of anonymous imposter postings in his name.
Anonymity can improve the quality of discussions:
link to fastcompany.com
How would you feel about anonymity if I revealed to you that Malcolm Mooney is actually a senior employee of the USPTO or a judge on CAFC who comes here to blow off steam.
“Anonymity is a great equalizer. It puts fools on a level with wise men”
Maybe, but only until one of them types some garbage like, “If we do not know who you are, why should we take your views seriously?”
Generally speaking, I take everyone equally seriously until they reveal themselves to be liars, dissemblers, shills or unrepentant hypocrites. My only reaction to commenters who label themselves “anonymous” is that they are either too busy or not creative enough to come up with a pseudonym to distinguish themselves from other “anonymous” commenters in the same thread. That’s a pity.
Paul,
You are so naive for an attorney
I bet you’ll never make a good litigator
It’s just internet, dude, a virtual snapshot of the real dog-eat-dog world out there
Here is one example for you: when I recently googled internet for my real name (the name on my recently issued US Patent) I found a whole bunch of comments in various professional blogs I never wrote… all signed with my full name…
there are some very very nice folks out there…
You should know it as an attorney.
I can tell you more amusing stories, how I found a bunch of falsified “prior art” on the same damn internet, and had to spend my money to file a damn IDS.
I never googled my name after this, cause my attorney told me that I am not supposed to look for prior art but if I do find it I have to file IDS , and I am already sick of filing those stupid IDSs
Sorry for borrowing you name – It’s just to make a point:
Nobody cares about who you are here…
Malcolm
It is not self-congratulatory elitism to use your true name, merely a courtesy to readers.
Anonymity is a great equalizer. It puts fools on a level with wise men, rogues on a level with honest men, the untrained on a level with the experienced and mouthpieces for partisan interests on a level with those exercising independent thought and judgment.
It is no service to readers of this blog.
I post comments under my real name, and in my submission anyone with anything important to say for the benefit of the profession should be prepared to do the same. If we do not know who you are, why should we take your views seriously?
This sort of vapid self-congraulatory elitism really stinks. In fact, the eradication of mindless credential-worshipping garbage like your comment is one of the primary reaons that blogs are so popular and useful — at least for those of us willing to read carefully.
The fact that it’s 2007 and Mr. Cole has not figured this out yet tells informed people something about Mr. Cole. And as Mr. Cole notes, that something is now preserved in virtual amber for everyone to read.
Paul,
Please pay no mind to notices reading, “No solicitors” – I’m sure you would be welcome anywhere, even if you were a solicitor. You do, however, sound more like a Minister of the Court. Your sage advice brings to mind another Minister, a Man for His Times, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who’s most widely read book, first published in 1937 as “Nachfolge” (“Discipleship”), begins, “Cheap grace is the mortal enemy of our church. Our struggle today is for costly grace.”
As the last of the top 25 posters, I am hoping to get the last entry on this topic, but time will tell! If I am successful I will be denying Malcolm Mooney or Max Drei the last word.
There are lots of opportunities for cultural and trans-national misunderstanding.
We used to have notices pasted to the windows of empty shops in England reading: “Bill Posters will be prosecuted.” I have never seen a report of legal proceedings involving a William Posters.
When I visit the US, I see notices in office buildings reading: “No solicitors.” It is unfortunate that these buildings are prohibited to the larger branch of the English legal profession.
I post comments under my real name, and in my submission anyone with anything important to say for the benefit of the profession should be prepared to do the same. If we do not know who you are, why should we take your views seriously?
It should also be realized that the Internet is not the telephone. Your comments are effectively here for keeps. So you should not say anything in a posting that you would not say in a business letter. Nor should you aim to give ammmunition to those who disparage the IP system.
“Actually, my idea was to have different contributer “levels,” one for those with registration numbers and one for those without with the levels being indicated next to the posters screen name. Perhaps one for those without registration numbers who are verifiably involved in patent litigation”
LOL. You forgot about a “level” which ranks commenters by academic degree, yearly income, and number of relatives on the Mayflower.
As for Peter Papp, I am guessing he went comatose after reading small inventor’s scatological fantasies.
Wow, I’m proud to be in the “Top 25.”
But at roughly 3:1 Mooney:Everyone else, its clear that Mooney is either unemployed, or is Dennis (doubtful). I’m guessing unemployed – another great reason to ignore him, or as Mr. Slonecker articulated, her.
Peter Papp had a great idea, one that I had proposed to Dennis regarding requiring a registration number to post. Actually, my idea was to have different contributer “levels,” one for those with registration numbers and one for those without with the levels being indicated next to the posters screen name. Perhaps one for those without registration numbers who are verifiably involved in patent litigation, and one for those without registration numbers who are members of patent faculty.
Re: Is Organized Big Business, OBB, not as bad, as bad or worse than organized crime?
In an earlier thread, D.W.A.P. wrote:
“In short, every single agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government operates at the behest of business organizations seeking to maximize profits at the expense of everything else, even the lives of citizens.”
At the risk of sounding like a broken CD, I’ll summarize what I commented at that time:
We are doomed!, but only if “We the People” are complacent!
Congressmen for the most part have also sold out “We the People” – it is not just the Executive Branch agencies that have sold us out in favor of Organized Big Business (OBB).
Now, even the United States Supreme Court is dancing to OBB’s tunes and is selling out “We the People.” For a non-IP example, see Kelo v. New London.
In its highly prejudicial eBay Decision in favor of OBB, the Supremes sold out “We the People” as follows: Put simply, in essence, the eBay ruling reserves a patent’s “exclusive Right” for big businesses, while simultaneously denying a patent’s grant of “the exclusive Right” to independent inventors.
The Supremes’ eBay ruling corrupted our Constitution. The best defense of the eBay ruling advanced by OBB has been to cite other corruptions of our Constitution that have also occurred, as if other Constitutional corruptions create binding precedent for further corruptions — in Wonderland maybe, but not in America.
All corruptions of the Constitution are a damn shame. Each corruption becomes more threatening to our way of life. Our country is indeed on a slippery slope, but democracy is no easy trip, and it never has been.
OBB has infiltrated all three Branches of our Government. What can we do to fight this growing ghastly grasp of OBB? How about this amended Preamble for starters:
We the People of the United States, in Order to achieve a more perfect Union, establish and maintain Justice, insure domestic Tranquility and freedom from the tyranny of OBB, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and RE-ESTABLISH THE Constitution for the United States of America.
Where-O-Where are our constitutional attorneys when you need them? How can intellectual attorneys stand by and not be offended-into-action by what’s been going on!?
Erez,
A well thought out good answer.
What you are doing is going back to the fundamental debate over whether we should have a patent system in the first place.
Most inventions will “eventually” be created by someone else at a later time. If Alexander Graham Bell hadn’t come up with the telephone then there were a few other, equally smart inventors (Elijah Gray) just behind him who would’ve come up with something very similar. The perception at the time of Bell’s invention was that most of the American population is scientifically illiterate if not totally illiterate. (Public schooling was not yet universal.) The legislators knew that only a handful of innovators, if any, would be around to push the frontier of technology forward. But why bother? The telegraph is good enough. Who needs something more expensive and more complicated like the telephone? Besides, the telephone was a “disruptive” technology. So many good folk had learned the Morse code and were earning their livelihood by it.
On the other hand, American legislators understood that they were in a competitive fight with foreign powers (Britain most notably) to see who would gain the economic edge with the latest in new technology. If America kept getting hand me downs from Britain, then America would always be behind.
In today’s world, the Japanese understand this concept very well. The Chinese understand it. It is only the American public that doesn’t get it. This is why the patent-weakening forces (as you call them) are gaining such a strong foothold in our political system.
By the time America wakes up and discovers she is a second rate nation, it will be too late. Wait, it already happened. We are a second rate nation. Look at the people running our patent office. Look at the people in charge of the highest court in our land. Why, they are so proud of themselves that “they” build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around [them] new works based on [mere] instinct (paraphrasing KSR v. Teleflex).
stepback
Oops, I did not get the binary joke 🙁
re the “nonmanufacturing applicant”
I’d like to try to get away from the semantics and focus on what I think the “weak patent” folks are saying.
There exists a subset of entities who control patents yet do not manufacture. Such entities include private inventors and lawyers who get a patent and wait for someone else to go through the harrowing process of product development and marketing and then sue that someone else. At least some of this type is called a “troll” and the existence of trolls is used by “weak patent” and “anti patent” advocates to demand weakening of the patent system, whether it is by preventing injunctions, reducing damages, or by setting an arbitrary and high level for what is not obvious.
My belief is that patent trolls should not be fought by weakening patents, but rather improving searches, reducing the presumption of validity of a patent and, when deciding damages, factoring in the diligence of the “troll” in giving the alleged infringer fair warning.
This is because my experience indicates that the only way little guys (who I believe to be the real innovators) can be rewarded for efforts is to give injunctions as a tool for negotiations with the big guys, to find investors or to provide time to produce. In the worst case, humanity suffers without the invention for 20 years at most.
P.S. Even if the patent owner is a “manufacturing” entity, ownership of the patent does not give the owner a right to manufacture the claimed subject matter.
“StepBack –> c) If you believe that we can advance our discussion by dividing the world into ten groups, do tell.”
Dear Erez,
That was a joke. The number 10 as read in binary code. Get it? 1*2^1 + 0*2^0. Get it?
–> “a) The term “non manufacturing” was not pejorative but descriptive. b) Trust me, I have more important things to do than insult anonymous strangers through the internet.”
No insult taken. However, the label “non-manufacturing” is totally irrelevant, especially when applied to the “inventor” who quite often does not own the property rights known as a “patent”. Usually the corporate entity that employs him or her owns the patent.
The property rights known as a “patent” are assignable from one owner (i.e. corporation) to another without regard to whether the buyer is a “manufacturing” entity or not. The rights that are transferred are supposedly the rights to “exclude” others and to license. Those rights shouldn’t morph from strong to weak and back to strong as different owners take possession of the property. Talking about “manufacturing” and “non-manufacturing” owners makes no sense.
You simply just don’t know what it means to devote several years of your life, late nights without pay, vacations not enjoyed, no praise or encouragement from anybody (other than your wife’s being constantly mad at you)… to finally come up with something worthy… which is called “invention”
I AM NOT WORTHY!!!!!!!
MM wrote: “…or we can acknowledge –explicitly — the incontrovertible fact that there were and are other incentives for a person to invent. I choose the latter and if I offend some people by doing so, I respectfully submit that is not my problem”
It is not your problem, indeed…
You simply just don’t know what it means to devote several years of your life, late nights without pay, vacations not enjoyed, no praise or encouragement from anybody (other than your wife’s being constantly mad at you)… to finally come up with something worthy… which is called “invention” …just to have it immediately appropriated (illegaly before EBay and now almost legally after EBay) by the shameless MBA and lawyer types… for the greater good of humanity, of course…
And you will never know…
End of discussion.
“I would argue that IN THE MAIN inventors require protection for their inventions if they are going to spend enormous amounts of time on them. This strikes me as a pretty unremarkable statement.”
It is unremarkable. But the rhetorical question you asked (which I rhetorically “answered”) is quite different: “What incentive would Carlson have had to devote this extraordinary amount of time and effort to his invention, were it not for patents?”
There was no strawman here. We can pretend that but for patents motivating indie inventor Carlson we wouldn’t have the xerox machine or we can acknowledge –explicitly — the incontrovertible fact that there were and are other incentives for a person to invent. I choose the latter and if I offend some people by doing so, I respectfully submit that is not my problem.
Dear Erez Gur,
I agree with you. When Max was writing about PSA, I posted positive comments thanking him for his posts. I wrote that I was happy to learn from his teachings.
It is a shame though, that somewhere along the way he turned into the Patent Nazi. Perhaps he watched too many “Steinfeld” episodes on TV.
It would be nice if he recanted and made amends – none of that “cheap grace” stuff.
As Rodney asked, Can’t we all just get along?
StepBack and SmallInventor
I guess I did not my message across. I apologize that I hurt your feelings.
I was trying to understand why so many contributors were getting irritated. I was hoping to isolate a core disagreement to discuss rationally without nastiness.
It seems to me that many discussions revolve around the issue of how strong patents should be to achieve the desired goals of encouraging technological development.
I belong to the “strong patent camp” and was trying to understand what the “weak patent camp” was saying. All I wanted to suggest was that the two camps agree on many things but do not agree as to how to handle the “non manufacturing patentee”.
I personally am not suggesting that there should be a legal distinction between manufacturing and non-manufacturing entities, although I suspect that judges do make such a distinction.
SmallInventor.
I may be wrong on all points, and will be happy to hear how. Indeed inventors have technical skills but do all of them have marketing skills? The answer is that the average marketing skill of a marketing expert in a large corporation is probably higher than that of an average inventor. This is one reason corporations are more effective at getting products to market.
StepBack
a) The term “non manufacturing” was not pejorative but descriptive.
b) Trust me, I have more important things to do than insult anonymous strangers through the internet.
c) If you believe that we can advance our discussion by dividing the world into ten groups, do tell.
Zeke, regarding your 11 June comment
Your comments describe what I imagine people in the “weak patent camp” are worried about, and their worries are no less valid than ours. This is exceptionally true if “obvious” patents are issued and if one considers that many things are invented almost simultaneously. One can dismiss, denigrate, villify and insult the “weak patent camp”, but then why bother writing in a discussion group? I say this as a member of the “strong patent camp”.
Just an ordinary Inventor:
I agree with you that TSM was good but as MaxDrei likes to point out, so is the Problem-Solution Approach.
Dear Mr. Holloway,
The large number of quotes from people underestimating technological progress is arguably from those:
(i) MOST skilled people in their respective arts,
(ii) MOST educated people in their respective arts in our country, and
(iii) MOST creative/inventive people in their respective arts in our country.
If these most skilled, most educated and most creative/inventive people miss what is arguably “obvious” to even some casual observers, then what does that say about the difficulty in devising a test for “obviousness”?
So far, only the CAFC has come up with a workable “Obviousness” test:
Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation, because TSM is based on evidence!
What the Supremes did in KSR merely mucked things up.
Concerning the posting that began “These “quotes” have been floating around the Internet and have been posed before — they tend to support Step Back’s and Erez Gur’s comments,” and then listed a large number of quotes from people underestimating technological progress … an equally impressive list of quotes of people *over*estimating technological progress can be developed. Neither list proves anything, except that humans are quite bad at predicting the future.
“No, it was “Tom” who overstated his case when he plainly suggested that patents are the ONLY incentive for people to spend time “inventing”.”
Jesus, Malcolm, you must strike terror in the hearts of Strawmen, given how many you destroy. You’re constantly acting as though you’ve defeated points that have been made, when you’ve only managed to turn them into extreme assertions that nobody would need to argue in the first place.
I certainly would not argue that ALL inventors in ALL situations require patents to invent. I would argue that IN THE MAIN inventors require protection for their inventions if they are going to spend enormous amounts of time on them. This strikes me as a pretty unremarkable statement.
Why on earth would I be obliged to hold anything else? Isn’t that assertion sufficient to provide powerful support for allowing independent inventors to have patents? Why would the occasional exception make a difference here, if one is truly interested in promoting progress? Even if only half of all inventors needed patents for an incentive (far less than is true, I’m sure), wouldn’t there still be a very good argument that patents promoted progress, since we’d be losing perhaps half of all inventions?
Likewise, your earlier argument that invention wouldn’t “stop”, but might only be “slowed” is of the same ilk. I don’t think anybody seriously believes that all invention would stop if patents went away, though one might in a moment of hyperbole say something that could be interpreted that way. Of what conceivable consequence is setting up that strawman only to destroy it? Isn’t it sufficient that throwing out patents for independent inventors would appreciably SLOW the “the progress of science and useful arts”, as the Constitution puts it? Why should anyone be obliged to argue anything stronger than that to shore up the case for patents for the independent inventor?
Mooney, just shut up and listen to what real inventors have to say…
Without patents no one would invent anything significant. Got it ?
If you don’t believe me, my little patentless friend, just ask some other inventors.
I mean, the REAL inventors with real inventions and *valid* issued US patents, not the likes of you or your crooked corporate clients
MM,
Sure, easy for you to Laugh. You’re use to being belittled. I’m only getting started (;o)
“I assume you were simply overstating your case”
*sigh*
No, it was “Tom” who overstated his case when he plainly suggested that patents are the ONLY incentive for people to spend time “inventing”.
That claim is false. Tom’s false claim — and that claim ONLY — is the claim I was responding to in my 1:14 pm comment. Inventors, because they are human beings like artists, occasionally act in ways that are not necessarily “rational” from a strict market-based perspective.
” will not stand by and have my profession belittled.”
LOL!!!!
link to power-of-attorneys.com
Dr. Snowboard,
Argumentum ad hominem attacks such as yours I can take.
And, of course, you are god damn right, I do get riled up when it is suggested by some Dummkopf that:
“… the demise of the “small independent non-manufacturing inventor” would have “an aggregate positive effect on the US economy.”
And the Dummkopf goes to suggest that:
“…vexatious litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison…”
What’s Dummkopf going to suggest next, a firing squad?
Please note that I didn’t start out ranting against Dummkopf. I started out trying coax him into seeing that his remarks were in poor taste over here, unacceptable. But when he lied and denied what he had suggested, I decidedly kicked it up a notch or two.
I will not stand by and have my profession belittled.
“Small independent non-manufacturing inventor”
Geez, I imagine this phrase began its life as “small inventor,” and people kept squeezing in adjectives to keep whatever pet argument alive.
Small independent non-manufacturing inventors are not useful! But what about the Xerox guy? Ok…uh, small independent non-manufacturing lazy inventors are not useful!
Has it ever occurred to anyone that — oh, hell, pick a number — 90% of patented technology never gets manufactured? Yes, that’s right, the great majority of glorious inventions never see the light of day despite the fact that they were invented by wonderful people working at fabulous corporations that manufacture loads of things. But remember, these corporations are better than small independent non-manufacturing inventors because these corporations are not small, are not independent, and, above all, these corporations manufacture stuff.
The small inventor plants a patent like an IED and waits for a noble and innocent corporation to drive past. The worst part is many of the victims of small inventors were on their way to manufacture things to make the world a better place. And don’t let anyone tell you that small inventors are just like inventors who work at corporations. Inventors who work at corporations are selfless advancers of technology who would work for free if we let them. But the small inventor, well, this creature only wants to make a quick buck from a napkin sketch and then kick back and laugh as the world weeps in suffering for the next 20 years.
Anyway, ya’ll keep adding adjectives and eventually maybe you’ll bump into someone worthy of vilification.
MM wrote “Look, at some point upthread the claim was made that without small independent non-manufacturing inventors, innovation in America would grind to a halt. When that claim was challenged (for lack of evidentiary support, among other reasons), the goalpost was picked up and moved and suddenly the new claim is that without patents there would be no innovation. Then, when that claim is challenged, the goalpost is moved AGAIN and the new claim is that without patents innovation would be “slowed”.
As for the latter claim, it’s not particularly interesting, especially when stated so vaguely.”
Malcolm, if you’ll read my posts, none of my statements had to do with small independent non-manufacturing inventors. I was responding to your comments on Chester Carlson and you equating artists to inventors. I assume you were simply overstating your case, but rather than simply admit that, you keep taking issue with my posts.
(1) Inventors on average create for different reasons than artists.
(2) If Chester Carlson had not patented and marketed his ideas and found an investor in the Haloid company, copying technology would most likely not be where it is today.
(3) Patents do incent the disclosure of ideas which feeds cross-pollination of ideas among inventors. The only areas where patents may arguably not assist in speeding up creation are rapidly changing technologies such as software.
Actually, I don’t feel foolish. The tone of your comments suggests a desire to rant. Your background may suggest you are genuinely interested in this forum, your mode of argument suggests you just don’t get out of your trailer as often as you used to.
I suggest you use your ‘god-given talent’ (yes, I did waste time reading the thread you so generously pointed me to) to invent something that is actually of use and of sufficient value to attract commercialisation before it’s developed by someone else.
I’m out.
Dr. Snowboard,
You are right – you ought to be ashamed.
Your comment, which makes no sense, was:
“Clearly there is no ‘IP community’…
Posted by: Dr Snowboard | Jun 08, 2007 at 05:45 AM”
FYI, the fifth comment below your comment in “RECENT COMMENTS” describes my background. No don’t you feel foolish.
More to the point, how, pray tell, do you feel about this comment?,
“So, damages apportionment might lead to the demise of the “small independent non-manufacturing inventor working in high tech”? Is there any reason why anybody should be concerned about the loss of that particular species? Quite the opposite. If they were all to disappear, I can imagine it having an aggregate positive effect on the US economy. …”
and about this comment?,
“…vexatious litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison…”
“Dr. Snowboard,
As was uttered in O’Brother, Where Art Thou?
“That makes no sense.”
It is obvious you have nothing to say. Give it a rest. You are not fooling anybody.
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jun 08, 2007 at 06:10 AM ”
Strict definitions of ‘community’
A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
b. A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.
3.
a. Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
b. Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
I was sarcastically referring to definition 3b. in response to the vehemence and stridency of your posts. I think you would do well to reread this thread from the beginning to consider if you have presented your ‘arguments’ in a fashion that is likely to convince anyone of your point of view. Frankly, you appear to be a ‘troll’ of the highest order and I’m ashamed I can’t resist baiting you out from underneath your bridge.
“I only have so much time in the day, and I would rather be spending it reading constructive comments as opposed to reading word games.”
Could you give an example of one of these “word games” which trouble you so?
“I pss in MaxDrei’s face”
“humor helps me avoid uncomfortable tension”
So, how long have you been off your medication?
Dear pds,
I find my work extremely stressful — humor helps me avoid uncomfortable tension and perhaps ulcers.
But I understand and truly appreciate your level of focused dedication to you profession.
I think it is different for inventors than it is for legal practitioners.
MM,
Thank you — I agree, and I take some comfort in your opinion, that readers aren’t about to pay much mind to MaxDrei’s hateful rhetoric. Still, I find it so offensive that I just can’t stand by and not take issue with his suggestion that, e.g.,
“litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison”.
I will say one thing he’s got going for him, he’s got the skin of a pachyderm (no offense to pachyderms) – I pss in MaxDrei’s face and he responds as if it is gentle falling rain, and he then dances around and denies he said anything offensive in the first place. But you are most likely spot on – he fools no one.
Maybe I should be more sympathetic – nah, he has earned my insults. What will MaxDrei come up with next, that attorneys who represent litigants with claims found to be invalid get to go to prison with the inventor?
Jaoi (TM):
If I want humor, I can find many more quality outlets for humor than this blog.
I read this blog for insight on patent law and the practice of patent law. As with other message boards/blogs I read, one must separate the wheat from the chaff. I have (on other boards) also referred to the noise-to-signal ratio. To me, someone who posts too much chaff (noise) and not enough wheat (signal) is someone that I would prefer not to read.
Unfortunately, my experience (again, including other boards) is that the most prolific posters typically are the ones that deserved to be ignored.
I only have so much time in the day, and I would rather be spending it reading constructive comments as opposed to reading word games.
MM free
“dangerous hate-monger”
Perhaps if Orrin Hatch was reading MaxDrei’s comments on the Senate floor, I’d be mildly concerned.
As it stands, I think the threat posed by MaxDrei and his rhetoric is pretty minimal. I definitely hadn’t detected this “Master Plan” you refer to. Does it involve more vacation time? If so, I am interested in learning more.
MM,
I meant to ask,
Do you really really think MaxDrei’s comment advocating the demise of “that particular species” i.e, America’s independent inventors, so as to have an “aggregate positive effect on the US economy.”?
was disparaging only “in even the slightest way”?
Note, I was even nice to dickhead MaxDrei before he began to advocate the demise of others having a positive effect on the US economy.
MM,
Do you really really think MaxDrei’s comment advocating the demise of “that particular species” i.e, America’s independent inventors, so as to have an “aggregate positive effect on the US economy.”?
Do you really really support MaxDrei’s Master Plan, i.e., “…vexatious litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison”?
Now there is nothing funny about MaxDrei – he’s a hypocritical dangerous hate-monger in sheep’s clothes.
MM, I had the impression that you were serious, smart, strong & sensible enough to take my little ribbing above. Was I wrong about that? If I offended you, I didn’t mean to — please excuse. While some don’t appreciate your brand of comment, others, like me, would join your fan club and ignore comments that you make with tongue in cheek and fingers crossed to liven up the thread. I like to befriend everyone, no matter what their opinions are, as long as they don’t make comments that disgust other people.
“I have no idea what you are trying to say here.”
Yeah, and you’re not the only one, Lionel. But that’s not my fault. Sorry.
Look, at some point upthread the claim was made that without small independent non-manufacturing inventors, innovation in America would grind to a halt. When that claim was challenged (for lack of evidentiary support, among other reasons), the goalpost was picked up and moved and suddenly the new claim is that without patents there would be no innovation. Then, when that claim is challenged, the goalpost is moved AGAIN and the new claim is that without patents innovation would be “slowed”.
As for the latter claim, it’s not particularly interesting, especially when stated so vaguely.
The most important lesson is that, as MaxDrei pointed out, there are folks who comment here who are really really sensitive and who, if they sense that their agenda is being disparaged in even the slightest way, let loose with their poorly aimed rhetorical popguns. Some of these folks are so sensitive, in fact, that they beg for a machine to assist them in keeping troublesome thoughts away from their sensitive eyeballs.
Dear pds:
You may remember my comment to you on May 21, 2007:
“While I whole-heartedly agree with your endorsement of a strong patent system, I’d suggest one minor clarification:
The preamble to the “patent clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, reads: “The Congress shall have Power …”, so that taken together you have:
“The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
What some people miss, including the Supremes in eBay, is that, if Congress does decide to secure patents as it has done, there is no option regarding “the exclusive Rights” – whether by ordinary injunction or otherwise, exclusive means exclusive, period.”
I’ve been commenting about eBay often and I am preparing yet another eBay comment to post in the next day or two.
Anyway, here is my 2 cents for Sunday afternoon:
I don’t mean to be offensive to anyone that doesn’t deserve being offended, but I’d like to make an observation based on working with many great attorneys, mostly great patent attorneys, over the past 40 years: Attorneys don’t laugh enough, and they almost never laugh loudly enough. My advice to attorneys and other IP professionals is to laugh, laugh often and laugh like no one is in ear shot. Laughing is good for the mind and the heart, and for what else ails you too. And watch Boston Legal and Monk (the modern day Columbo but funnier) as often as possible. You’ll thank me later.
Apparently not everyone finds MM funny — some do, me for one, but he certainly can be argumentative, abrasive and obtuse at times. Live and let live, and use the scroll bar liberally. But try to find humor wherever possible for your health’s sake. I like to think of MM as Patently-O’s cartoons, comparable, for example, to the cartoons in the New Yorker or Reader’s Digest — cartoons you thumb through to find for their humor before you start reading the articles.
Please comment more frequently — your comments rank among the best in my book.
“Just as I sign documents submitted to agencies and the courts using my actual name, I believe that any opinion posted to a professional blog should reflect likewise.”
Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with your statement. However, my job is to speak for my clients, but there are instances in which my opinion (on this board) may not necessarily reflect my client’s public opinion. For this reason, I prefer to remain anonymous to retain my freedom to opine as to what I believe (and not as to what my client believes).
Besides, who wants to be in the position 5 years from now, when the patent you prosecuted is in litigation, and the other side pull up a post from this board in which you espoused the very same legal position that the other side is espousing (and opposite to your client’s position)?
Is it likely to happen? No
Could it happen? Yes
I’m impressed that I made the top-10 (albeit in the last spot) … I guess this means that I should be posting more. Heck, just on this thread alone, I’ve fell behind anywhere between 10-15 posts to the top posters.
Anyway … I’ve mentioned this before, and I’ll mention it again. The #1 tool that I would like to see this blog employ is an ignore feature.
Just on 2 posters alone I would be able to eliminate 10% of the posts and about 75% of the posts I prefer not to read. My guess is that if many people did the same, many of the replies to these 10% of the posts would be also eliminated, which in the end, I suspect, would probably reduce the number of posts I have to read by about 20%.
This would be a great invention … I wonder if it is obvious???
MM free
These “quotes” have been floating around the Internet and have been posed before — they tend to support Step Back’s and Erez Gur’s comments:
“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this,” – – Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
“Everything that can be invented has been invented,” — Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.
“Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances.” — Dr. Lee DeForest, “Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television.”
“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.
“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.” — Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923.
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” — Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
“I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” — The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.
“But what is it good for?” — Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” — Bill Gates, 1981
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us,” — Western Union internal memo, 1876.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” — David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible,” — A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
“I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper,” — Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in “Gone With The Wind.”
“A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make,” — Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies.
“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out,” — Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible,” — Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy,” — Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” — Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value,” — Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France.
“The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required.” — Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University.
“I don’t know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn’t be a feasible business by itself.” — the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” — Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.
“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,” — Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
And last but not least…
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
So much for the “Wise Minds”…..
P.S.
In view of the above, you might understand why I find the closing rhetoric in the Supreme Court’s holding in KSR v. Telelfex such a hoot:
” *We* build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works *based on instinct*, *simple logic*, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of *our* shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from *[ever] higher levels* of achievement is *expected* in the *normal* course, the results of *ordinary* innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents *might stifle*, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.”
[emphasis added]
Who is this “we” that possesses “our shared knowledge”? The Supremes do not “manufacture” anything. They merely produce pure rhetoric unsupported by any evidence. They do not “share” in the technical knowledge that is known to persons skilled in the various technical arts. I forgive them because they know not what they do. However, I expect much better from those who comment here at Patently-O and therefore are supposedly personally involved and skilled in the patenting arts. Before you criticize real inventors for their achievements, try inventing something of your own, something that actually works and is novel and you are ready to present to the world even if the world will mock you for it:
1. You want to do what? Photocopy stuff with a $100,000 machine when carbon paper costs 1 cent apiece? You are insane.
2. You want to do what? Process words on a $10,000 “computing” machine when mechanical typewriters cost $100 apiece? You are insane.
3. You want to do what? Manufacture small squares of paper with a defective glue on one side when paper and good glue are already out there for dirt cheap? You are insane.
4. ___ Add your favorite here
Erez Gur,
Like SmallInventor, I vote that you are misguided on numerous fronts (although you probably mean well and do not see your comments as messaging what they message to other folk).
First off, we do not “all” agree.
As for myself, I divide the world into 10 groups. (Those who count in binary and those who don’t.)
Secondly, it makes no legal sense to divide the class of inventors into “manufacturing” and “non-manufacturing”. You should realize that 99% of inventors are “non-manufacturing”. Even those who work for large corporations are 99% “non-manufacturing”. They simply hand off their designs to other departments in the corporation. Those other parts of the corporate animal may elect to “manufacture” the invention in-house, or more likely now a days, to “offshore” the whole process.
Obviously your use of the pejorative label “non-manufacturing” is a euphemism for the “have-nots” versus the “haves” as SmallInventor correctly senses but knows not how to articulate in the form of confrontational rhetoric.
One of the skills that most inventors (and patent prosecuting attorneys) lack is the ability to spot raw rhetoric and then respond to it.
In the case of your post immediately above, the main rhetorical tool is one I like to refer to as “herding the sheep”. The subconscious undercurrent of your argumentation is this: Either you’re part of the mainstream or you are an outcast. Sorry, I am not a member of either of your two flocks of head nodding sheep. We do not “all” agree. That’s what makes some of us human. Having been on all sides of the table (patent practitioner, employee of a large corporation, independent inventor) I echo what SmallInventor says. You know not what you speak of because apparently you have not personally experienced it. Getting an invention to market is hell even if you work inside a large corporation and 1000 times more so if you are an independent who can’t get a toe in through the door.
Erez Gur, you are just wrong on so meny points
Believe me, small independent inventors have skills (I mean technical skills), what they don;t have is money, And money is everything in America today.
Some people would argue that it should be easy to raise VC money if you have a good patent. Have you ever tried ? For one thing, VCs couln’t care less about your invention, all they care about is money return, in other words, a good business plan.
Unfortunately, in many areas of tech (e.g. semiconductors, cell phone industry) it’s just nearly impossible for an outsider, even a well-financed one, to get in: the large incumbents will do anything to prevent this from happening, to the point of taking big losses just to drive the outsider out
So many of those so-called “trolls” (including myself) never had a slight chance to get into production mode in those mature industies.
And innovation will NOT occur at the same rate without patents
In pharma industry it will mosty definitely stop – no one wants to develop drugs so that any generics manufacturer can copy it and sell for pennies
Innovation will only occur in those fields where trade secret protection is possible.
In other fields innovation will most definitely stop for lack of incentive.
Patents provide incentive to invent if no trade secret protection is possible
Take tool industry, for example. Once you take any tool apart you can reproduce it for pennies on a dollar. Who would want to invent new tools in the absense of patent protection ? The large existing manufacturers and retail chains ? Home Depot ?
Just give me a break…
Above, I expressed my opinions about MaxDrei. For example, I opined above that:
“MaxDrei lives to grossly denigrate American inventors;
MaxDrei lives to criticize our patent system; and,
MaxDrei lives by the rules: LIE, DENY and COUNTER-ACCUSATIONS
MaxDrei, you have thus far revealed yourself to be a blight in the IP community.”
Lest we forget about MaxDrei’s extreme anti-inventor agenda, I’d like to supplement my thoughts on this thread with the comment I posted earlier this morning on the May 25, 2007 thread titled: “Patent Reform 2007: Apportionment of Damages” (here is the link):
link to patentlyo.com
From that earlier thread, here is my supplemental comment about MaxDrei’s agenda:
—
MaxDrei’s proposed Solution: PRISON for American inventors! Incredible!
MaxDrei wrote this (directly above):
“…vexatious litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison…”
MaxDrei’s comment directly above seems to follow-up a prior comment also in this thread above (“Posted by: MaxDrei | May 28, 2007 at 09:38 AM ):
“So, damages apportionment might lead to the demise of the “small independent non-manufacturing inventor working in high tech”? Is there any reason why anybody should be concerned about the loss of that particular species? Quite the opposite. If they were all to disappear, I can imagine it having an aggregate positive effect on the US economy. …”
MaxDrei now has a prescription for his master plan:
“…the demise of the “small independent non-manufacturing inventor…”
i.e.,
“…vexatious litigants (including those asserting claims found to be invalid) get to go to prison…”
MaxDrei,
Do you not realize how agonizing such remarks are? Have you no conscience?
Your “Solution” reeks — you know exactly what I mean.
Despite what Dr.Snowboard says, it seems we are actually approaching a consensus. Everyone agrees that innovation will occur without patents, the problem is that there will be little disclosure and we’ll return to the age of the guilds. The only real argument is how strong patents held by non-manufacturing entitites should be.
We all agree that turning an idea described in a patent to a marketable product is not a simple task and requires many skills that most inventors (and people in general) don’t have. Since inventors are usually passionately in love with their invention or (justifiably) greedy, their patents act as a brake on innovation.
So we divide into two groups:
Group 1 believes that non-manufacturing inventors rarely do anything useful with their invention and often act as “trolls”. This is exceptionally irritating when we consider that so many inventions are independently invented by a number of people within a year of each other. This group maintains that since, in absolute numbers, non-manufacturing inventors so rarely develop inventions into useful products, as a matter of policy we should weaken the rights of the non-manufacturing entities for the greater good.
Group 2 (of which I am member) believes that as a matter of policy we should give a non-manufacturing inventor an exclusive right for as long as he/she wants to pay (up to the maximum of 21 years, pharma excepted) to give a chance to “make it big” and set up a manufacturing facility. We believe that society has to offer up the bait of pots of gold so that the creative people will take risks, knowing that they will most likely fail miserably.
I would summarize by saying that it seems that although Group 1 is probably more practical, Group 2 is more in tune with the apple pie / John Wayne / Superman / American spirit thing.
“Malcolm also replied to me here “”in the technological arts, you place no value on speeding things up? Most people do.”
Screeeeeeech. Put the goalpost back.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Malcolm wrote in response to my quoted bit here “”You appeared to be suggesting that in the absence of patents, inventors would still invent for the reasons that artists do. I was highlighting the flaw in your logic.”
There is no “flaw” in my logic. People would still invent without patents, just as people did before patents. And people will still make art without copyright, just like people did before copyright. And did you know you can dedicate your art to the public and void copyright? Yup. It’s all true.”
The flaw in your logic is that while inventions would occur without a patent system, they would occur less and be shared less without one. Do you disagree with that thesis? I believe fewer inventions that are shared less frequently is a negative.
Further, while an artist can certainly dedicate a work to the public, they have to affirmatively do so. If the author takes no steps, they are protected by copyright.
Dr. Snowboard,
As was uttered in O’Brother, Where Art Thou?
“That makes no sense.”
It is obvious you have nothing to say. Give it a rest. You are not fooling anybody.
Clearly there is no ‘IP community’…
Malcolm, really, how dense are you?
As I said, the story of the development of xerography was one in which AT EVERY STEP, the existence of patent protection was absolutely key to its continuation.
I simply repeat: a crucial part of the story of the development of xerography was its original invention by independent inventor Chester Carlson. He conceived the idea in 1938, but didn’t persuade any larger entity to adopt it until 1944 — 8 years later, after it had been greatly progressed, through Carlson’s considerable efforts, to a point that its viability was vastly better established than when he first conceived it. Again, even after 8 years of such development, it was STILL a hard sell. How many companies would have chosen to sink 8 years of effort into such a venture, especially given that even at that stage it was still very far from a mature product? As an individual inventor, such an investment of effort could make sense, because the personal payoff could be great, and because one could convince oneself that the idea had merit. But how many companies would allow a researcher to spend that amount of time on such a highly speculative project, which literally, in fact, took 21 years to bring to fruition? Have you ever worked for a technology company and tried to persuade them to pursue an idea that is that far out?
Really, is this point just too hard for you to get? Or just too inconvenient for your rather crackpot ideology?
If you can’t come up with any kind of alternative scenario in which xerography could have come to fruition WITHOUT the existence of a patent to cover the initial, most speculative work done by Carlson, then you have nothing to support your view.
Not, of course, that that is going to stop you from typing as if you do.
I think the “small inventors” in this thread have done a good job of showing why they’re unemployable.
“Do you honestly think that awarding patents to those universities can be harmful for the US economy and technological progress in US ?”
It depends on the patents, of course.
But I do not recall suggesting that awarding patents to small inventors or small universities or large universities was, per se, “harmful” to anything. So I’m not sure why are you asking my “honest” answer to your question unless you want to change the topic.
Malcolm,
just forget about us, small non-manufactoring inventors, for a second.
Let’s take another example – US research universities like Stanford, for example.
Do you honestly think that awarding patents to those universities can be harmful for the US economy and technological progress in US ?
After all, they are patent trolls, just like the rest of us, small non-manufactories inventors, only bigger… None of them makes any products you can buy at Best Buy.
BTW, all products sold at Best Buy are made in China, which makes the entire argument about domestic producing and non-producing entities look kind of ridiculous
My daughter’s old IPod has it all written on its back side:
“Proudly designed in California by Apple. Made in China.”
“You can certainly advocate the Soviet system over the capitalist system”
No thanks. I will point out, however, that your statement falls into the category of weak arguments known as “the false dichotomy.”
“How long, in the absence of patents, might it have taken some other set of individuals, institutions, and companies to develop that long change of ideas and improvements which resulted in the fully functioning technology of the 419?”
The goalpost keeps moving. The original claim was along the lines that giving patents to small independent non-manufacturing inventors was somehow necessary for innovation to occur. I think that claim has been debunked.
That doesn’t mean that I’m “anti-patent.” It doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to awarding patents to independent non-manufacturing inventors (on the contrary!).
It just means that I don’t believe that awarding patents to small independent non-manufacturing inventors is necessary for innovation to occur. I don’t believe that claim because the claim is false, and obviously so.
Meant to say that the 914 was introduced in 1959 — 21 years after Carlson’s original conception of the idea.
Malcolm, you said “Progress happens. Patents may help to speed things up but they are not a necessary ingredient. Neither is copyright.”
As an artist you know that you create (whether your music or your visual art) because of the burning need to express something to the world, although I’ve heard of some artists who are eager to earn lots of money, for example Madonna, Elton John, Bruce Willis and the creators of “Pull My Finger Fred”.
Apparently inventors are a less altruistic lot: all the inventors I have met want to turn their ideas into money.
That said, you are right: progress happens even without independent inventors who have dreams of getting really rich. For instance, the Soviet Union functioned like a giant corporation where inventors were richly rewarded with warm handshakes and extra rations of gruel.
You can certainly advocate the Soviet system over the capitalist system of rewarding inventors who have the creativity, drive, guts and maybe stupidity to leave a real job, take a loan and try to make something of their wild ideas. But first, be sure that you want to live in a place like the Soviet Union.
Max:
I do not know the stories of Dyson, Hickman and Haberman and whether they started as industrialists who later invented stuff, or rather started as “small independent non-manufacturing inventors” and succeeded. That is why I mentioned Amplazter. More recently, Geoff Hatton of Peterborough (UK) was reported as having invented a revolutionary “flying saucer” unmanned aircraft. To quote the Daily Mail “The age of the British amateur inventor toiling away in his humble garden shed lives on”.
“LOL. I suppose “but for” Darwin, we’d all still be wondering how Noah fit all those animals on the ark. Progress happens. Patents may help to speed things up but they are not a necessary ingredient. Neither is copyright.”
You know, you really should read the history of the development of xerography to get a sense of just how much patents did to promote the development of the xerox copier.
To begin with, it took Carlson many years to develop the underlying technology from his first conception in 1938 — time he would have been quite unlikely to spend if he had no protection for those ideas. When he got a patent on the idea, and was in a protected position in could he could promote the idea, it still took him many further years to get anyone to see the potential in it and further develop it. Battelle Institute was the first, in 1944, but even after spending a good deal on development, Battelle likewise found it hard to find a manufacturer of a potential product who would properly promote it. Finally, a small company, Haloid, took a gamble (where Kodak had said no), and spent more time and money to improve the product. The first big commercial success was not until the introduction of the 914 by the then named Xerox Corporation.
Now it’s pretty obvious that virtually none of this high risk investment and activity would have taken place without some very real protection of the underlying ideas at every step along the way. Carlson would not have spent his time and energy. Battelle would not have signed on if it couldn’t protect its own investment. Haloid would not have invested its resources without such protection.
In short, this was a 21 year process of development that owed all its real protection and investment viability to patents. How long, in the absence of patents, might it have taken some other set of individuals, institutions, and companies to develop that long change of ideas and improvements which resulted in the fully functioning technology of the 419? I’m not even sure who would ever have had a reason to take such a tremendous gamble on such a long term process of development. Without fundamental protection of the ideas, the risk of failure, already great, would have rendered the investment in the ideas utterly irrational. It’s quite plausible that patents brought about xerography literally decades before it might otherwise have been developed.
And what did the technology do for us? Really, the least consequential fact is how it improved the fortunes of Xerox. The far greater consequence was its impact on the easy communication of myriad forms of information, and the great efficiencies it introduced — which, of course, was precisely why it was so tremendously popular as a technology.
Now, maybe this sort of impact means little to you, Malcolm, but to most of us, it’s exactly the sort of story that makes patents seem like an absolutely indispensable component of a innovative and productive economy.
Jaglowski
“If reader participation and contribution is important, then the sooner that this blog is moved to a Slashdot-like system with registration and moderation the better.”
Yeah, because everyone knows that the Truly Serious and Important blogs use registration and moderation to ensure that only the Serious and Important Ideas are aired.
Without registration, wow could Mr. Jaglowski possibly be assured that everyone is reading all the important and serious things that he has to say if common folks are allowed to be sarcastic? The thought of it! Why, it’s enough to dislodge one’s monocle.
“in the technological arts, you place no value on speeding things up? Most people do.”
Screeeeeeech. Put the goalpost back.
“Without Carlson, the copying industry would be significantly behind where it is now.”
Of course I won’t ask you to prove this strange statement because you can’t.
“You appeared to be suggesting that in the absence of patents, inventors would still invent for the reasons that artists do. I was highlighting the flaw in your logic.”
There is no “flaw” in my logic. People would still invent without patents, just as people did before patents. And people will still make art without copyright, just like people did before copyright. And did you know you can dedicate your art to the public and void copyright? Yup. It’s all true.
Does this mean I have an anti-patent agenda? Nope. Maybe a little bit of an anti-“whining small inventor” agenda, but trust me I don’t spend much time promoting that.
MaxDrei,
Are you digging even deeper?, making yet more gris for the mill? I.e., does your comment above mean that, contemporaneously speaking, what you said (copy below) only goes for the U.S.A?
“So, damages apportionment might lead to the demise of the ‘small independent non-manufacturing inventor working in high tech’? Is there any reason why anybody should be concerned about the loss of that particular species? Quite the opposite. If they were all to disappear, I can imagine it having an aggregate positive effect on the US economy….”
UK independent inventors, (contemporary figures that is, not historical distant memories) with business acumen, who have risked their own money to create new product lines for today, include Hickman, Dyson, Haberman. It wasn’t so many years ago that cyclone vacuum cleaner inventor and manufacturer James Dyson was venting his negative view of the patent system. Now he has his own Chief Patents Counsel, advises Government, and is a sought-after client for people like me. I believe all three inventors have a positive view of patent attorneys. None of these three UK inventors falls in the category of “small independent non-manufacturing inventor working in high tech” (that has provoked so much ire above) because each had more than “an idea”. Each had a convincing (low tech) working prototype.
Malcolm wrote “That’s nice. What about artists who reject copyright?”
Their works are protected from creation. They need to register a copyright to use federal courts to enforce their copyrights, but all the same, they do not reject copyright.
“Or who simply care less. But who still make art.
You know: most artists.”
I agree, but this statement has little to do with inventors.
“”Without Carlson’s invention, and his development and promotion of the idea, how would Haloid or anyone else have developed xerography?”
LOL. I suppose “but for” Darwin, we’d all still be wondering how Noah fit all those animals on the ark.”
No one was looking to do what Carlson was doing when he did it. Would someone else have come along with a similar idea eventually – probably. However, Carlson invented it and worked his ass off to get a company to invest in it. Without Carlson, the copying industry would be significantly behind where it is now.
“Progress happens. Patents may help to speed things up but they are not a necessary ingredient. Neither is copyright.”
True, I could argue against a patent system as well as the next guy. But in the technological arts, you place no value on speeding things up? Most people do.
The comments on this otherwise professional blog are becoming extraordinarily banal, as vividly evidenced by a supermajority of the comment chain above. If reader participation and contribution is important, then the sooner that this blog is moved to a Slashdot-like system with registration and moderation the better. At this point I rarely read the comments because the intellectual return on investment only continues to decline.
Malcolm Mooney wrote “Are you comparing inventors to artists?”
Are you saying that but for small independent inventors we wouldn’t be able to make copies of images on paper?”
No. And I am not sure how you read that into what I wrote. I was perplexed by your seemingly nonsequitor response.
You appeared to be suggesting that in the absence of patents, inventors would still invent for the reasons that artists do. I was highlighting the flaw in your logic.
Now if you intended something else by your vague response, please enlighten me.
” genuinely creative inventors ”
Ah, the No True Scotsman gambit. Weak.
“And of what possible significance is that to the point I’m making? Without Carlson’s invention, and his development and promotion of the idea, how would Haloid or anyone else have developed xerography?”
You mis-characterized the history of the matter. I sought to correct it. I have no argument with Carlson’s achievement but you should acknowledge that Carlson did not create a viable product – it took Haloid’s money and engineering resources to turn the idea into a product.
BTW, I am not anti-patent as a general proposition.
“Artists have copyright protection to their works that extends 75 years past their deaths.”
That’s nice. What about artists who reject copyright? Or who simply care less. But who still make art.
You know: most artists.
“Without Carlson’s invention, and his development and promotion of the idea, how would Haloid or anyone else have developed xerography?”
LOL. I suppose “but for” Darwin, we’d all still be wondering how Noah fit all those animals on the ark.
Progress happens. Patents may help to speed things up but they are not a necessary ingredient. Neither is copyright.
Sorry, the first paragraphs in my previous two posts were intended to be quotes from other posters.
A billion artists are rolling over in their graves.
Shallow as usual, Malcolm.
Artists have copyright protection to their works that extends 75 years past their deaths. If they ever do hit it big, no one should be able to rob them of a monetary payoff. In any case, even without a monetary payoff, no one will be able to deny that the work of art was the artist’s.
But if an inventor discloses an idea without a patent on it, what does he get? Typically, not even the slightest credit — in fact the company who stole his idea will find a million ways to deny that the idea was really his. And of course there will be hordes of people like you and Joe Smith who will claim that it was obvious to begin with, or it really was someone else’s idea, or that it was a useless idea as presented by the inventor. Not only will the inventor NOT get any money, he won’t even be allowed any pride of invention, if you and Joe Smith were to have your way.
And how many genuinely creative inventors would do it simply for pride? Look at the paucity of invention in Open Source if you want to see how little true innovation takes place when all you get is a pat on the back.
Carlson was not looking for someone who would “manufacture” his invention. He was looking for someone who would invest their money and skills in turning his idea into a product. Carlson may have had the initial ideas but it was Haloid (Xerox) who turned it into a successful product.
And of what possible significance is that to the point I’m making? Without Carlson’s invention, and his development and promotion of the idea, how would Haloid or anyone else have developed xerography? Why would Carlson have spent his time on the invention? Why would anyone have invested in his idea, if it could be easily stolen by others when proven successful?
And of what possible import is the distinction you’re making between Carlson’s finding someone to “manufacture” his invention, and finding someone who will invest in a company to “turn his idea into a product”?
Can you anti-patent people ever approach an argument honestly?
“Are you comparing inventors to artists?”
Are you saying that but for small independent inventors we wouldn’t be able to make copies of images on paper?
Malocolm Mooney quoted and wrote “”What incentive would Carlson have had to devote this extraordinary amount of time and effort to his invention, were it not for patents?”
A billion artists are rolling over in their graves.”
Are you comparing inventors to artists? I admit that some inventions almost certainly came from a technologists’ intellectual curiousity, but many are driven by financial reasons including selling products and sometimes licensing their ideas. Chester Carlson was always interested ion licensing his idea and was one of the reasons he obtained a patent.
“You are SOO ignorant that it would be simply a waste of my time to discuss anything with you”
OK. I accept your offer. Don’t reply to my posts in the future and I won’t reply to yours.
“What incentive would Carlson have had to devote this extraordinary amount of time and effort to his invention, were it not for patents?”
A billion artists are rolling over in their graves.
Little lemonade Joe,
You are SOO ignorant that it would be simply a waste of my time to discuss anything with you
Read the books, Joe, stop posting ignorant garbage here…