Although it is very much part of a PR campaign, the new documentary Inventing to Nowhere is also really well done. Now streaming online:
88 thoughts on “Inventing to Nowhere”
[…] PatenlyO posts about this interesting documentary titled, “Inventing to […]17
Intellectually honest. Fair. Balanced. Welcomed. Needed.
why is anon watchdog commenting on all comments he obviously does not like:is it a full time job?it slows down the reading of all these interesting comments.
Why is “the dude” watchdogging my comments and attempting to cast aspersions on the speaker, rather than addressing the topics with which the speaker is discussing?
Apologies for ‘slowing down’ the monologues that you find “interesting,” but the counterpoints to those “interesting” monologues are attempts to turn the monologues into dialogues.
Would that not be more interesting?
Why so concerned with where that path leads, “the dude?”
Come, let’s discuss the issues and leave the distractions aside – if you dare.
“Apologies for ‘slowing down’ the monologues that you find “interesting,” but the counterpoints to those “interesting” monologues are attempts to turn the monologues into dialogues.”
Bro, if you “attempting” such for years has led nowhere, or in fact leads to the same old “dialogues” each time then you be trollin.
Once again 6 you reveal the self fail that exemplifies the worst of this blog.
Your view leads only to competing drive-by monologues.
The purpose of the comments section is not monologuing – it is dialoging – your sense of “Tr011ing” is just not what that word means.15
December 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm
The issue is not whether “integration” of an abstract idea with otherwise eligible subject matter can occur. The issue is: how does it occur?
Good question. Let’s answer it!
First it starts by reading the statute at 101, and realizing that a process is an independent and legal category of patent eligible subject matter. (See Bilski )
In cases of statutory construction, we begin with the language of the statute. Unless otherwise defined, “words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,” Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42(1979), …
.S. 175, 182]
the ordinary, contemporary definition and use of the term “Integrated”, from dictionary.com
1. combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole.
2. organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively.
So in determining whether the claim before us is “Integrated” you logically ask;
Is the claim combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole?
Is the claim organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively?
If the answer is yes then the claim is “Integrated” whether it falls under the process, manufacture, machine, or composition category of 101. Providing the claim meets the new and useful requirement, ( utility ) the claim has satisfied the 101 requirement and you may proceed on to 112, 102, and 103. Unless it is evident the claim involves, or is entirely composed of a Court created exception. Then the Integration Analysis continues. I will explain this in part II.
The more I see what is happening the more convinced I am that there is a very concerted effort to weaken or end patents from corporations with a lot of money. I think the only reason it hasn’t happened yet is that there are some other corporations that don’t want them weakened.
The more I seen what is happening the more convinced I am that there is a very concerted effort to weaken or end patents from corporations with a lot of money.”
You are right NWPA. Big corps like Google, that have spent billions on YouTube do not want to pay royalties to a comparatively small company like Ultramercial, even if Ultramercial was first to invent and file a patent on the on the process. The flip floping of Lourie, and the flagrant disregard for the law by the entire panel was a travesty of justice. And I especially think Google fears another upstart inventor sitting in their college dorm room and coming up with a new algorithm that out performs what Google has. I mean why allow another potential billion dollar competitor when you can hire the inventor and simply pay him/her 75k a year and get all the genius ideas for life?
I think there is hope though with Integration Analysis. Providing of course Googles billions cant get to the Supreme Court.15.2
Part I I
In identifying a Court created exception in a claim we first begin with the case law of the Supreme Court of The United States.
Although “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable subject matter under §101 of the Patent Act, Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185, “an application of a law of nature . . . to a known structure or process may [deserve] patent protection,” id., at 187. But to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent- eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words “apply it.” See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 71–72. It must limit its reach to a particular, inventive application of the law.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Vs Mayo Supreme Court.
While every category under 101 is accountable to the Court created exceptions, the process category has been the source of the most confusion, particularly when it involves a so called business method and software invention. However it’s vital to acknowledge at this stage that no where in Supreme Court case law does it hold that business methods, software or computer inventions are exceptions to 101. In fact the Court has explicitly held the opposite, see Benson and Bilski.
With that in mind we proceed with how to identify a legal exception using the process category as our example.
1. A judicial exception is a step in a process.
2. A judicial exception has been reduced to a series of steps encompassing the entire claim.
We “must” do as the Court instructs and determine if the claim limits the reach of the exception, and if the limitation is to a particular inventive application.
Key to determining both reach and inventiveness turns on “Integration” as we will see when we look at Diehr, Bilski, Prometheus, and Alice as examples in part I I I
What happened to part III? That seems like, by far, the most important part.15.2.2
“While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.” Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939). 11
We think this statement in Mackay takes us a long way toward the correct answer in this case. Arrhenius’ equation is not patentable in isolation, but when a process for curing rubber is devised which incorporates (Integrated) in it a more efficient (inventive) solution (application) of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred at the threshold by 101.( Diamond V Diehr) [ Words, integrated, inventive, application , are added from Prometheus case for comparison purposes ]
In the Prometheus case the Supreme Court reconciled Diehr with Flook and it’s other precedents with
Integration Analysis. As you read, note the use of the interchangeable keywords that reconcile the two cases.
Inventive = more efficient
Application = solution
“Diehr and Flook, the cases most directly on point, both addressed processes using mathematical formulas that, like laws of nature, are not themselves patentable. In Diehr, the overall process was patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated ( incorporated) the equation into the process as a whole. 450 U. S., at 187. These additional steps transformed the process into an inventive ( more efficient) application (solution) of the formula. But in Flook, the additional steps of the process did not limit the claim to a particular application (solution), and the particular chemical processes at issue were all “well known,” to the point where, putting the formula to the side, there was no “inventive concept” in the claimed application (solution) of the formula. 437 U. S., at 594. Here, the claim presents a case for patentability that is weaker than Diehr’s patent-eligible claim and no stronger than Flook’s unpatentable one. The three steps add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity…”
By the way, the further you integrate an exception the more you limit it’s reach. This limitation of reach is objectively determined by the preemption inquiry. ( See Diehr, Prometheus)
Now that we are grounded by Supreme Court case law we can create some basic rules to efficiently and accurately apply the Court’s Integration analysis to actual claims.
Rule 1. Old concept + inventive application ( more efficient solution or result) = eligible. (For example, a more efficient solution for curing rubber.)
Rule 2. Inventive concept + old application = eligible. ( Diehr lacked an inventive concept according to Flook, but had an inventive application according to Prometheus, so it was still eligible. )
Rule 3. Old concept + old application=ineligible subject matter.
In Prometheus the law of nature, though newly discovered, had always existed and was old and the steps for applying it were well known… The claim was therefore ineligible according to Supreme Court precedent. Had the process been further integrated into an inventive application as in Rule 2 above, the claim would have been eligible subject matter.
Same rules apply to Alice. Intermediated settlement, like hedging in Bilski was a well-known fundamental economic concept. Integrating the concept into a computer system, Rule 3, was not considered inventive by the Court. But had the inventors integrated the old concept running on a computer system into another process that was producing a more “efficient solution”, as was the case in Diehr, you would have an inventive application, Rule 2, and therefore eligible subject matter. And this is why Ultramercials claims are patent eligible subject matter as well.
While applying an Integration Analysis is not as simplistic as the bright line test of MOT, if you take the time to actually “think” it through in an “intellectually honest” manner, you will find that it works in a very fair and efficient way for establishing patent eligible subject matter, that incorporates, and is based purely on Supreme Court precedent.
Thank you for your post. I don’t know that we really disagree on the rules, from what I can tell. Of course, it seems like we very much disagree on how those rules are applied.
But again, thanks for the substantive post.
Go Author, you are right in that I made an error in applying the rules. My fault for not closely editing my post. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Now, here is how the rules are applied.
In Prometheus the law of nature, though newly discovered, had always existed and was old and the steps for applying it were well known… The claim was therefore ineligible according to Supreme Court precedent. Had the process been further integrated into an inventive application as in Rule 1 above, the claim would have been eligible subject matter.
Same rules apply to Alice. Intermediated settlement, like hedging in Bilski was a well-known fundamental economic concept. Integrating the concept into a computer system, Rule 3, was not considered inventive by the Court. But had the inventors integrated the old concept running on a computer system into another process that was producing a more “efficient solution”, as was the case in Diehr, you would have an inventive application, Rule 1, and therefore eligible subject matter. And this is why Ultramercials claims are patent eligible subject matter as well.184.108.40.206
I want to point out a typo and error regarding the application of the rules. Essentially, Prometheus and Alice claims could have been patent eligible subject matter if the claims had been “Integrated” according to rule 1, not rule 2.
As is demonstrated, rule 1 incorporates the “inventive application” of Prometheus.
You know—oddly–the patent trolls may be the ones that save the system from it being Googlized.
At the cost of it totally collapsing…13
A good argument can be made that our innovation revolution (1980-present) is due to the formation of the Federal Circuit by Jimmy.
I know I lulzed.
I cried for the demise of our democracy.12
I find it amusing that the oh-so-beleagured “little guy” they chose to focus on appears to be a trust-funded guy with a “workshop” that seems larger and nicer than the dwellings of probably half the people in the country, if not more. My heart began bleeding almost immediately.
What would have been awesome was for this propaganda to focus instead on the “little” patent attorney who spent “years” trying to “solve the problem” of how to get Netflix to pay him money for his nutty “send me an email about my account status” claims that would never have been granted by any sane functioning patent system.
That “little guy” got smacked down hard by bad old Netflix and “the press” was not kind to him. Sometimes I cry just thinking about how unfair that was.
All of your nonsense depends on factual whether or not the patents actually promote innovation. No one that I know of that actually works with these companies — like me–would say it does not.
But, we know you are the great and powerful MM that lives in your head and that you like to just fabricate how the world works in your head.11
“anon” : [in the video] I found this dastardly plan:
– Fully funding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
– Allowing the USPTO to retain all of its user fees
Those sound like good ideas that have been around for a long time and proposed by all kinds of people, within the system and outside it.
– Encouraging the USPTO to invest in additional human and other resources
Nothing new there, either. All kinds of people have been “encouraging” the PTO to make all kinds of improvements.
– Revising metrics for USPTO examiners’ compensation to encourage and reward quality of examination, not quantity of applications reviewed
Again, sounds great, it’s an old idea suggested by all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas. The devil, of course, is in the details.
In the context of this video, these proposals come across like bone-throwing, i.e., “We’re not just people who want more patents, all the time, and easier to enforce. We want to help the PTO do its job and separate the worthy patents from the unworthy. Really! You can trust us.”
…come across like bone-throwing….
To your twisted anti-patent psyche, I can easily see you thinking that.10
As I noted above, take a look at what entities are a part of the “innovation alliance.”
Of course this is still opaque information, as one does not know who gave a dollar to the development and who virtually paid for the entire production… But given the treatment of some of the subject matter, some conclusions could be drawn.
Total PR nonsense. Sad really.
Err… Noted below not above.10.2
Several conclusions can be drawn from your bizarre adverse reaction as well.9
The video is nice full of beautiful images but some statements of the elliptigo guys (who are very sympathetics) are really at odds with the reality:there is no such guarantee by the government that granting a patent on their type of bikes will make them the only ones to manufacture this type of bikes-they know it because they found that their”invention” has been patented earlier by others(they licensed from him!):and they got patents on improvements only.
And to be effective against the chinese they should have patented in china(and protect their trademark)the initial invention!as they did not do it they made the choice to let the chinese compete(and design around).Don’t blame the system:just blame yourself.think global not only US.don’t be unfair to others.8
Although the video was well made and it is accurate enough for its purpose, the video is a solely for PR/campaign purposes and should be treated as such. This is evident, as other commenters have already pointed out, by the videos’ simplistic message: “Strong patent laws are good for the little guy, and legislatively weakening patent laws can lead to dire consequences.” I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the video’s statement, but the video puts forth no evidence for their claim besides concurring testimonies from small to medium sized technology companies. The straw man argument that doing away with patents would have dire consequences for start-ups adds nothing to the conversation either.
I do agree that Congress should take their time to consider the long term effects of any new patent legislation, but that can be said of any new legislation. I enjoyed some of the video, but after finishing it I felt frustrated that they took such a simplistic and one sided political stance when I was hoping for a genuine discussion.
“Accurate enough…, simplistic…, strawman…”
You say that you are not agreeing or disagreeing, but your choice of words says something else.
Do you have a theory to share how a weaker patent right is helpful? Do you have any points that you can add “to balance” the message?
Why exactly are you “frustrated?”
Feel free to start any discussion points that you had hoped to see.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. The video is accurate enough for its audience. Although they could have gone more in depth into how the system works, which I would have enjoyed, they kept it simplistic for they lay person, which I understand.
The video’s message is one that almost no one, including myself, could disagree with: Don’t legislatively weaken the patent system without serious consideration. That being said, there has recently been a real problem with patent trolls/non-practicing entities. The judicial system is already addressing this problem and has lessened it pro-patent stance, but some pointed legislative guidance could help as well.
I was personally frustrated because I was hoping to learn something in depth and new, but instead the video was one sided and gave no support for their agenda. Again, I say agenda not because I disagree with their final message, but because the video is politically motivated.
An example of the video’s one sidedness is how the video dismisses legislation trying to address the problem of NPEs. The video uses broad strokes and explains that Universities would fall under the category of NPEs and legislatively taking patents away from Universities would be bad. Aside from the fact that Professor Dreyfuss would disagree that the Bayh-Dole act has had the desired effects, the proposed legislation I have heard about does not include original inventors in the definition of NPE. Although Congress hasn’t always had great foresight in patent matters, this strawman argument the video fights against is a nonissue.
I find your frame of reference a bit odd for a number of reasons.
You assume a conclusion (that the patent system is not under attack) – which is plainly off – and then say that parts of the message addressing this are “strawman” arguments – which they most evidently are not.
I do not recognize the professor that you mention, but if you are putting stock in his beliefs, and you think the Bayh-Dole Act is not a success, then you have no credibility.
As far as any legislation and the defining of NPE’s based on original ownership, you fall into yet another fallacy and absolutely miss the point as to the intended alienability of the property.
The “help” that you seem to want to add via legislation – the very things you seem to want – are themselves lacking in the basis of what patent law has always been about. You assume that what you want is somehow “of course” reasonable and should be there, but it is you that lacks the support for the changes in law that you appear to want.
I think you’ve miss understood me, again, although I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m not taking sides or arguing for or against legislative changes to the patent system. I am only being critical of the video itself as it is a one sided PR piece. But I’ll admit that it is a good one sided PR piece, if seen while keeping this in mind.
I was acting pompously by referencing Prof. Dreyfuss and her work, but please refrain from making ad hominem attacks. That is not what this comment section is for.
I do not believe that I have misunderstood you at all.
Yes, you say (again) that you are not taking sides, but again, the rest of what you say indicates otherwise (for at least the reasons I have provided).
Further you seem not to understand the use of ad hominem, and seem to think that all use is improper.
Such is not the case.
Where, as here, the use is drawn to a discussion point, it can serve as a sharp rebuke. Clearly, the Bayh-Dole Act has been one of the most successful pieces of patent legislation ever. That you wanted to align with a counter view very much can be – and should be – used as an indicator of your credibility.
You can use the comment section for repairing that loss of credibility, or you can whine about your ‘feelings.’ But please, spare me the hypocrisy of not wanting someone to be critical if your own writings being critical (even as you attempt to say that you are not being critical). I would rather you address the points I offer to support the ongoing conversation. For example, perhaps some reasoning as to why Bayh-Dole is a ‘failure,’ or why you seek to confuse the issue of alienability of property that was purposefully made a part of the patent right.7
Anyone that watches this film should understand why every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job. A fact that has never been successfully rebutted on this blog.
If you watch this film you will notice that every invention, from the first airplane to modern medical diagnostics, was at it’s core a process with an entrepreneurial objective and solution.
This fact is even more relevant in the wake of Judge Mayers rants to make patents and inventions with entrepreneurial solutions, exceptions to eligible subject matter. ( See Ultramercial III, DDR )
Imagine the setback that would be to the creation of jobs, innovation, and the nations economy.7.2
101-Every entrepreneur creates at least one new job (his own), and successful ones create more, and inventive ones create things that may be patented. The only factual thing in your statement may be that you made it up, or you are defining entrepreneur tautologically as a job creator.
The facts are actually that most inventors fail, often with patent in hand, a low percentage succeed. The reasons we think are not usually patent related. Headstrong inventors often lack the understanding that the passionate idea is not enough, and find the steps to commercialization are more expensive and complex than anticipated. It wouldn’t hurt if some (not all) patent lawyers were more aware of whole process and better understood the choices in that an invention may be more later on in the process, but may need early protection.
When I was counseling small companies or individual inventors, I tended to steer them away from patents. Patents can be helpful, but the idea that one will get rich merely by filing an application and receiving a patent is basically a myth. I tried to convince people they needed at least good business acumen, belief in what they were doing, and a market for their product(s). Patents can fit into that, but many times if one does not have all of those requirements (and more), patents might not help.7.2.2
thePeople:” The only factual thing in your statement may be that you made it up,…”
Yet you can’t state one thing I said that was not a fact.
101 Integration Expert wins.
OK maybe we missed your point, and don’t know what your never rebutted fact is. (Leaving aside that arguments are rebutted not the fact – supported or not )
Was your fact that anyone who watched the “film” should understand why …? Or is it that every new patent issued is a job creation in the entrepreneurial arts?
Lets ignore the first as opinion, if the second and even when accepting it as a generality instead of fact, you cannot validly argue that x number of new patents were issued, and x+ new jobs as proof of a causal fact. post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
New businesses are born entrepreneurially, and surely companies can grow through innovation. Good patents reflect innovation. Patents and working patent systems don’t cause innovation or ensure success but do promote innovation and can contribute to success. What’s new?
You’ve provided a thoughtful response, but I think we’re just being trolled.
Go Author: ” I think we’re just being trolled.”
How about you contribute something of substance to this topic rather than attempt to inject some disparaging remark. Or, of course you can just Go away , like you do whenever the subject of Integration Analysis is brought up.220.127.116.11.2
thePeople “OK maybe we missed your point, and don’t know what your never rebutted fact is.”
Every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job.
That’s a fact.
You can’t disprove it.
Many have tried.
All have failed.
And that now includes you.
Everything else you want to argue is just a strawman.
Every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job.
Actually not true. You are ASSUMING that the patent is actually useful. There are thousands of patents that turn out to be useless. And thus do not create even ONE job.
You err again becuase you refuse to recognize the terrain.
A patent must be useful since utility is a requirement.
Perhaps your vision of “useful” is blurred by our over indulgence of kool aid and you are thinking of some type of “must have product use” which simply is NOT a requirement of patents.
A patent MAY be useful.
I have one. No it did NOT create a new job. Was it useful? only if it worked, and we couldn’t prove it did. Thus not useful.
And since “every patent” was supposed to create a job, that makes the statement false.…
“Creating a job” is not my meme, and is quite apart from the legal terrain that you still stumble around in, completely lost regarding what “useful” means.…
And you are still absent from reality.
I KNOW that patents do not necessarily create a job.
Hmm. Unless you are referring to lawyer jobs. But then, it should depend on a stream of patents and not just one.…
You keep on using that term “reality,” but I do not think that that term means what you think it means.
Here, you obviously failed to read what I actually wrote and continue to insist on arguing a meme that is not mine (the meme on ‘jobs’), all the while ignoring what I actually write as to the very real difference as to what “useful” means in the patent law context.
You simply must understand the terrain of the discussion here.
Read – and understand a Sun Tzu.18.104.22.168.2.1.2
Jesse: “You are ASSUMING that the patent is actually useful.”
An issued patent enjoys a presumption of validity. That means the patent has met the requirements of
1. Utility (usefulness ) 101
2. Novelty 102
3. Non Obviousness 103
4. Enablement 112
Now that an issued patent could be found invalid causing an Entrepreneur to go out of business, and thus be out of a job, does not change the fact the job was initially created and once existed.
In addition, that the Entrepreneur may fail at his/her job for any reason simply does not change the fact they had the job to begin with.
Or more simply put, anyone can “lose” a job. Doesn’t change the fact they once had the job.
So it remains a fact:
Every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job.
Many have tried to disprove it.
All have failed. And now that includes you Jesse.
It is assumed that a patent is useful if the examiner doesn’t see anything about it that prevents it from working.
Patents are issued for things that don’t work.
And that makes the statement false.…
You are conflating “operable” and “useful”
These are distinct concepts.…
If something is not “operable” then it cannot be “useful”… except maybe for fraudulent lawsuits.
And you are divorced from reality.
You do understand that a patent right is NOT a right to do anything in an affirmative sense, right?
You do understand what a “negative right” means, right?
The reality here is that you insist on talking about legal terms while refusing to understand that which you are talking about.
You simply do not care how badly you are embarrassing yourself.22.214.171.124.2.1.3
Jesse said: “every patent” was supposed to create a job, that makes the statement false”
Maybe, but that’s not my statement. I said,
“Every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job.”
Now, if you were not a new entrepreneur then you can’t prove my statement false. Or if you were a new entrepreneur and somehow failed at that job, that still does not prove my statement false, and the fact remains. You can deny it forever but you can’t disprove it. No one can.6
I did hate to see the small eliptigo folks getting ripped off though. Folks like that should have a quick and easy way to enforce if their patents are covering the device well. It’s a shame the courts are so expensive.5
I wonder why they left out “or you can troll” around 8:20?
Perhaps because that meme is just a misguided anti-patent propaganda meme…?5.2
Take a look at what entities make up the “innovation alliance.”
From the cite:
Our members include:
Fallbrook Technologies, Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald, LP
Cummins Allison Corp.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
If you can highlight one in all caps, I will as well…
Now the question is who really paid the bills on the PR piece (note how even Dennis points out that this is part of a PR campaign).
(the all caps was per the website)126.96.36.199
Tessera and Qualcomm – Frenemies?4
Could have been a lot better with more details. The big picture is right though. Google wants patents very much weakened and is getting his/her way. The patent trolls are the justification, but clever people could have taken out the trolls without burning our system down….
And seriously disclosure is a huge part of this. It is not an accident that the new trade secret bill would create causes of action against employees in CA home of Google.3
I agree somewhat with MM, but don’t want to associate myself with the imagery. I found it very tedious and watched to the end out of a sense of duty. It is apparently aimed at a general audience in an attempt to get some to sign a petition to Congress reading in part: “That is why we oppose efforts by some multinational companies in Washington, DC to weaken patents and make it harder for inventors and start-ups like us to live out our dream of creating something and calling it our own.”
Although I respect Dean Kaman and David Kappos, neither bothered to explain what bad things the multinationals are attempting to do. I have some idea (not all bad either, e.g., get rid of Form 18), but the presentation would have been more effective for even a general audience if there was something more than platitudes.
Also in the back of my mind are academic studies which tend to show that it is a zero sum game for all but chemical and pharmaceuticals.
What bad things? Lee, CJ Smith, Taranto, Hughes, and Reyna. Enough to burn it down.3.2
>>are academic studies
Do you mean the type that are put together and then published in non-peer reviewed journals?
The only source that comes to hand at the moment is a non-peer reviewed book, Patent Failure, by Bessen and Meurer at BU Law School (2008). They attempt to empirically determine the value of patents leading to the conclusion I entered. I lack further citations, but think this is not out of line with others. Interestingly, pages 95-96 respond to our Prof. Crouch’s “upbeat” assessment of the patent system.
There are others on here that can point you to criticisms of the Bessen study and book, but from what I’ve seen this is heavily criticized with very specific criticism that point out flaws in the study.188.8.131.52
The fact is troubled that there is a troll problem. There are companies out there that just produce patents that are trouble makers IMHO.
But, everyone that I know of that works with start-ups (like me) and real tech companies (like me) see the enormous value in patents. We also see the Chinese try rip-off everything under the sun.3.3