When Even Dilbert Is Making Fun Of The Absurdity Of The Patent System...
from the there's-a-problem dept
The general awfulness of the patent system seems to be reaching deeper and deeper into the mainstream these days. As a whole bunch of you sent in, even Scott Adams is mocking the patent system via a recent Dilbert strip: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, scott adams
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would really love for you to point out where Mike extrapolated his use of Dilbert to all 'somethings' and where he concluded the patent system needed to be fixed simply *because* it was in a Dilbert cartoon.
And, by the way, in the process of making your completely hyperbolic statement are you dismissing the role of cartoons in social and political commentary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is so damn evident and bad that it's being made fun of. Mike has made his point and you, yet again, missed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I use Mike words exactly. Dilbert in the past has made fun of self-important bloggers. So by his standards, perhaps it's time to fix that too.
You join the eejit in the "inability to follow simple discussion" group.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The far harder and more informative task is to direct discussions away from the extremes.
Of course, this would likely result in rather bland articles.
As for the proposed legislation itself, while there are a few provisions that may be useful in the administration of the USPTO, I have as yet to see any substantive provisions that I believe will materially improve the law over what is now in place.
First to File: A race to the USPTO that undercuts truly enabling disclosures.
Derivation Proceedings: Whoever manages this function will almost certainly sit at his/her desk with nothing to do.
Post Grant Review: An administrative nightmare that will be litigated for many, many years to come, with outcomes being unpredictable.
Etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While a worthy goal, fixing that isn't a matter for Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other news, AC forgot his medication this morning.
Next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By all standards, perhaps it's time to fix your attitude, too.
You join the long list of AC's in the "inability to follow civil discussion" group.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That way patents are still valuable to NPEs--they can appreciate and be sold--but it's less tempting to use them to troll. Practicing entities can enforce their patents (and yes, that leaves some problems unsolved, but my feeling is that those are better addressed by antitrust law than patent law). Small inventors can get patents, license patents, and sell them. NPEs can make enough to cover the admin costs of licensing their portfolios, and by doing so respectfully can advertise to inventors who have patents to sell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doh. Should I spell it?
And yes, he made fun of bloggers. And there are bad bloggers out there indeed. But now I AM the one missing the point just for the lulz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
troll harder
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: RE: Polly wants a..........
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The easy fix is simply to stay away from their self important blogs. Why don't you try it!
One of the wonderful things about them Intarweb tubes is that anyone can publish. Nobody has to listen.
It really must bother you that what Mike says resonates with so many people.
Nobody is making you stay here to suffer with self important bloggers. So try it. Take my advice. Nobody's keeping you here. Go away.
But I know you won't.
If you really cared, you would address the actual substance of the problems with the patent system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the tip!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, is cracker REALLY that big a deal? TAM's a douche nozzel, but let's not play up the politicaly correct angle.
Second, would it have been better if he'd said "cracka"? Just sayin'.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-Comic reminds me to file my patent for "method for purveying humour in an online medium"
-There's nothing wrong with filing absurdly broad patents.
What worries me is that the US Patent Office actually accepts them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bias
"patent reform"
Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??
Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.
Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
patent bill is bad for America
Masnick, only you could use faulty facts and reasoning to arrive at a valid conclusion...the patent bill is bad for America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bias
At least your website is down. Nothing's worse than a single page, wallpapered, multi-fonted website screaming about the latest conspiracy theory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reply to Patently Absurd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should there be software patents, a public legal debate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look around you, yes, you are in a corner, and yes, you are surrounded by a wet painted floor. Welcome to Doucheland, population you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should there be software patents, a public legal debate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should there be software patents, a public legal debate
WTF?!? A debate with a fictional topic?
Never heard of such a thing before...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should there be software patents, a public legal debate
As a programmer, I don't know a single programmer who does (and I know hundreds). Funny how it always seems to be the lawyers and execs who want them.
And if they absoultely have to, they should be for an EXACT specification and implementation, not the vague, overbroad waffle that the patent trolls like to abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should software patents be banned, a more public debate
No, they shouldn't be.
There that was easy enough !
As a fly, and I don't know a single other fly who does (and I know BILLIONS of them -we all hang out on the same long log of dog dung).
Funny how it always seems to be the follow-the-herd Dilbert programmers in their Dilbert cubicles who want property right valuations for the work they do to be zero or less. And their Catbird managers support that notion. Why is that?
Why is that? Well first, it is so because they don't teach the art of rhetorical technique in C++ class. They don't explain why it is irrational and illogical to engage in Appeal to Authority (i.e. me and all my hundreds, thousands of friends believe in Santa Clause and ergo He is real). They don't teach in C++ class that just because saying something feels good (ha ha, I have hundreds of fly brained friends just like myself and you don't, ha ha) that doesn't make it good, or right, or logical.
So yes, you can hang out on this Me-n-Mike we-know-what-we-like blog log and make fun of lawyers or scientists or what have you and feel smug, especially when babbling out noises (i.e. patents, software, don't tread on me) whose meanings you don't truly understand and feel smug and proud of yourself for it. But none of that makes it logical, rational or right. Try not to think to deeply about that. Thinking is not your thang.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(not so) funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just a Matter of Time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reply to Patently Absurd
[ link to this | view in thread ]