Dilbert Takes On Overbearing Patents

from the but-confuses-trademark-law dept

Wed, Sep 9th 2009 10:10am — Mike Masnick

It didn't take very long for a whole bunch of you to submit today's Dilbert, where Scott Adams (finally) goes after overly broad patents, with Dilbert announcing that it makes no sense to build things any more, since "all future ideas are already covered by over-general patents":

Though, to be fair, Adams seems to confuse patents and trademarks in the second panel (editors?). Still, nice to see Dilbert taking on such an issue.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dilbert, patents

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 10:24am

They're not incompatible
The REAL action is in Trademark Infringement. That's where you can stop people from even talking about you. At least, people with fewer lawyers and/or resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2009 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: They're not incompatible
  Especially when one considers that section 230 immunities don't extend to service providers, lots of money for trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AW, 9 Sep 2009 @ 10:33am

No Taco for you
ChurchHatesTucker - Yeah, but why won't Glenn Beck deny he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

Everyone else - I love Dilbert. I am glad so many other readers do too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kilgore Trout, 9 Sep 2009 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: No Taco for you
  LOLWUT?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re: No Taco for you
    Did I miss some kind of Glenn Beck rapist discussion while I was battling Swine Flu?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shawn (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Taco for you
      http://techdirt.com/articles/20090908/0321546127.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Taco for you
      "Did I miss some kind of Glenn Beck rapist discussion while I was battling Swine Flu?"
      
      So you also cannot deny Beck's rape and murder of a young girl in 1990?
      
      Interesting...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Enrico Suarve, 10 Sep 2009 @ 2:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Taco for you
      Hang on, people who are accusing Glenn Beck of raping a young black girl in 1990 are now suddenly contracting swine flu?
      
      Are there any lengths he won't go to in order to cover up the fact that he still won't deny not having raped a woman?
      
      Sick bastard (not you, Glenn). I mean that Glenn is sick obviously for not denying that he is giving out swine flu to people exposing his covering up his not denying raping a girl not you for having it, although you obviously are or were sick, but in a different way, unless Glenn also has swine flu after exposing himself in which case you're both sick in the same way...partially
      
      Some people say that Glenn is not doing enough to protect the children, and now I understand why. It must be because he's too busy raping them or infecting those kids who spot that he hasn't said that he isn't in fact Glenn Beck an alleged child rapist but someone else instead
      
      I can't believe this is allowed to go on - I'm shocked, this is too much...[sobs]...won't somebody think of the anchors? No? [blows nose]...this isn't the America I love...Oh yeah I'm English, anyway...[cries]...devastated
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avatar28 (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 1:00pm

I doubt Adams was confused
Adams was an engineer, I really doubt he was confused about the difference. Notice how Dilbert said they should get out of their current business. CHW has it right, Trademark seems to be what everybody is trying to ab-use these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anon, 9 Sep 2009 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re: I doubt Adams was confused
  Adams was not (and is not) an engineer. He majored in economics and got an MBA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 9 Sep 2009 @ 1:20pm

Dilbert
Like I've said so often before, Dilbert is a documentary not a comic strip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spaceman spiff, 9 Sep 2009 @ 2:03pm

patents vs. trademarks
I think this was a deliberate "mistake". How else could Dilbert take down both patent and trademark trolls in only 3 panels? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- athe (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re: patents vs. trademarks
  Agreed. This was my thinking too when I first saw the strip.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2009 @ 2:25pm

Reasonable reverse royalty
What about a reverse royalty for busting an overbroad patent. You could recover legal fees in reverse infringement by people who would have infringed by are now free and clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 9 Sep 2009 @ 3:43pm

To be fair?
"Though, to be fair, Adams seems to confuse patents and trademarks in the second panel (editors?). Still, nice to see Dilbert taking on such an issue."

It's a cartoon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad, 10 Sep 2009 @ 5:02am

seems familier
The only winning move is not to play?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2009 @ 6:44pm

It makes sense to me. Making products is risky: what if patent reform fails? Patent litigation is risky: what if patent reform succeeds? OTOH, trademark litigation is on a steady upward curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sprearson81 (profile), 9 Jun 2012 @ 6:37am

Gotta love a bit of Dilbert!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality bites, 14 Sep 2014 @ 10:01am

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just imprison the lawyers?
Since only one out of 1,000,000 is human anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]