Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs
from the major-mistake dept
The President has been talking up how Congress now needs to get focused on "job creation." That certainly sounds like a good thing, but it seems pretty clear he's going about it the wrong way. In a recent address, President Obama said that a key component to his job creation strategy was to get the patent reform bill that's bouncing around Congress to his desk, because he wants a bill that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea.He's wrong. His reasoning is also wrong. He claims that making it easier to get patents is important "because we can’t give innovators in other countries a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs." But that's ridiculous, for a variety of reasons. First, it assumes that only one person in the US could come up with a particular invention (and, Mr. President, patents cover inventions, not "products or ideas") and that the only one person who comes up with an invention is also the only one who can build jobs around it. As for innovators in other countries -- what the US patent system does has no impact on their ability to open a new business or create new jobs elsewhere. The logic makes no sense.
But, more importantly, as we've been arguing for years, but which the mainstream press is finally waking up to, the very problem of our patent system is that it's way too easy to get patents, and that limits job creation and is costing companies billions. The way to create more jobs is to have fewer bad patents, to allow for an independent invention defense and to stop thinking that more patents mean more innovation.
Mark Cuban has jumped into the discussion as well, highlighting how the patent system is a significant cost of doing business for all of his companies, and he'd be able to hire a lot more people if all of his companies weren't getting slammed with bogus patent infringement lawsuits.
Every technology company I have is getting hit by patent lawsuits that are the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Every week it seems like a new one comes up. Between having to pay our lawyers a lot of money to review each, to increasing insurance rates and settlement costs because we can’t afford to pay to fight the nonsense, it’s an enormous expense. So much so that money that would have gone to new hires to improve and sell the product has to be saved to pay to deal with this bullshit.And yet, despite this widespread outrage over a completely broken patent system, no one in Congress has made any move to fix it. Instead, they're still debating a useless bill that fixes none of the problems, and makes other problems worse. Patent reform has become a lobbyist's delight, rather than a real fight to help encourage innovation, and it's too bad that the President seems to be leaning in the direction of holding back innovation and destroying jobs by making the system even worse.
I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls. These aren’t operating companies that are trying to protect their business. These are companies that aggregate patents and raise capital for the sole purpose of suing companies and extorting money from them.
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: jobs, patents, president obama
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typo
The main reason for correcting them is so that we don't get ignored as idiots if someone quotes or references the site. Better quality-of-writing gets you taken more seriously. Read the story about the Mechanical Turk rewrites of reviews leading to an increase in sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typo
just for the record... I'm perfectly happy with people pointing out typos. I do find it silly when people attack me for making a mistake, but a simple pointing out of an error, as was done here, is totally cool, and useful for me to make corrections. I very much appreciate those types of comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typo
Incorrect use of comma.
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
I hope this turns into a spelling & grammar correction shit-storm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
(Keep it going!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typo
Spot an error? Notify our editors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typo
I notice.
Hey, sure beats "First!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typo
I thought that was your intent...
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There has been zero laws passed this presidential term that has created a single job. Any "job" that has been created is at the expense of one or more private sector job.
What this president has done is create more and more government regulation that will hinder the economy and increase the role of government in the lives of what used to be free individuals.
Sadly, the Republican party has no intention to reverse any of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We wouldn't be in this mess if the government knew what it was doing. The housing and economic collapse, $14.5 TRILLION debt, the sad state of our IP system, shitty schools, overpriced healthcare, economy draining entitlement programs, the failed War on Drugs, 3 military wars, etc. can attest to that.
For all the reasons above, I consider myself a limited-government libertarian. The less the government can fuck up the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is also why I think there should be an automatic sunset law on every law they make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd rather see old laws revised or stripped out and made understandable to the average citizen.
Actually, I'd like to see our "lawmakers" be held for treason should they inflict damage on the country. I'd like to see them legislate like their lives literally depend on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if the government knew what it was doing
Cheney's Halliburton made a 'killing' in Iraq of more than one variety with 'no bid' contracts not subject to fiscal review.
Is this new ? Remember Gen. Armstrong Custer of the Indian wars ? He was in such bad odour in Washington that the Wild West looked like a better idea than the Capital. Why ? The President's brother was running rampant fraud in war contracts for the military....and he was silly enough to 'blow the whistle'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're saying the GOP is just as much to blame right? Or more so because they explicit said they were going to 'create jobs' and have done nothing but partisan abortion bills and such?
Funny, this president is saving 750k, presumably private sector, jobs PER MONTH. Ain't great but it's a damn sight better than his predecessor.
If by 'hindering regulations' you mean, prevented insurance companies from simply cancelling your policy, trying to prevent another wall street meltdown, yes, yes he has.
'Less regulation' is what got us into this mess, we need more regulation to protect against runaway corporatists who have no interest in the public good. Ask any business which they want, lower taxes or increased demand for their services...they aren't going to say lower taxes...
All that said, this is the Dem's general modus operandi, big media getting to write their own laws that do nothing to promote the general good and only line their pockets :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- lack of job bills, see http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php. I defy you to find anything resembling a focus on jobs. You see however that Abortion was the 3rd thing considered, and a few more times in the top 10.
- 750k jobs a month, google 'bikini graph' to see how many jobs were being lost every month when Obama took office, and how in about a year, he and the Dems turned that around into at least breaking even.
- stimulus, this actually 'created' jobs, and heavily contributed to the previous point. When that ran out because the size of the downturn was underestimated, we're seeing the weak jobs since. How much better would we have been without the GOP created 'debt limit' boogeyman?
One side has consistently tried to downplay anything that might help the average person, because they don't want to do anything to make Obama look good. Hell, McConnell in the Senate said it explicitly - "My number one priority to it make sure Obama is a one term president." Not jobs, not the economy, no America...#1 is to downplay anything the president does.
Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Less regulation' is what got us into this mess, we need more regulation to protect against runaway corporatists who have no interest in the public good. Ask any business which they want, lower taxes or increased demand for their services...they aren't going to say lower taxes...
'Less Regulation'? What less regulation? The federal government has done nothing but increase the amount of regulation in the financial, housing and healthcare markets. This regulation is what led to much of this recession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it was a result of massive government involvement. I don't know how you could possibly argue it was from a lack of regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without that government guarantee they wouldn't have a AAA rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we're right back to the government fixing problems that it messes up in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know what makes you think the government is messing things up. Most bankers and lawyers are quite pleased with the US government. If your aren't a banker or lawyer, that's your own problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they specially used the Game Theory thing to prove to others that it would work.
They just didn't count that maybe the assumptions underlying that theory were flawed, so even if the math was flawless it reached the wrong conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't deregulation, though that helped. It was a number of factors coming in to bring about a shit storm of epic proportions. Gramm Leach Bliley, banks colluding for just such a thing (look into the funding for it...), Barney Frank, rejecting the Republicans wanting to actually fix it, Barney Frank, the Government Sponsored Entities Freddie & Fannie and how they cooked the books, Barney Frank, and fake demands based on how much people could afford a payment.
Oh, and Barney Frank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Selective enforcement is good. Just ask Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want me to give some links to Mike arguing for selective law enforcement or do you want to shut up can crawl back up his butt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cornocopia
And thus a politician's delight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I once saw a charge of a lil guy with blinders on a tricycle (Reps) pulling an elephant (Democrats) to the abyss. Then next you see the world bound to the elephant being drawn to the same fate.
I guess I'd draw them both pulling the world to the hole.
The US Govt is killing the US. Amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Many other countries have mirrored our IP and patent laws, and so the problem as I see it is that we've dug ourselves into a very deep, very wide, very big hole.
If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.
Nokia and Samsung and others could sell, say, iPad clones here, whereas Apple could still get hit with patent lawsuits across the globe.
In essence, it's the Cold War unilateral disarmament problem. He who disarms first is at a severe strategic and tactical disadvantage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
Thats the reality of the situation. Now stop thinking everyone wants to copy Apple just because you do, Samsung, Nokia, Google, MS, HTC don't want to copy Apple even a little bit, they want to copy their success, which means innovating at the same or greater rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
We have one of the largest markets in the world, so we should use it as leverage against whomever needs leveraging.
TC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competition
Can't think of anything that could go wrong with this idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competition
Why an arbitrary time limit? Tell them, "Your products may not be imported into America until you repay the American company for any economic damage your suit caused it. The sooner you pay up, the sooner your products can be sold here."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
Actually most other countries don't have s/w and business model patents to the extent that the US does so this is a false dilemma. (If they do have them it is mostly due to pressure from the US.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
Besides the same way Samsung and Nokia could copy anything others inside the US could also copy anything they do and demand a smaller profit, the great thing about a real open market is that locals start to do things by themselves and only the very capable will be able to displace them.
Walmart had no protections and they destroyed mom&pop stores everywhere they won that battle on competence alone in the beginning now they do have government support(federal/local).
Asian countries beat the US at everything, why are people trying to create a system that gives more power to those who reach the top first at the expense of everybody else.
I would be very worried that Asian countries could actually do a better job at issuing more patents and closing every growth path there is, thus corralling the US yet again, like Walmart did with the mom&pop's.
You are not dealing with dis-motivated incompetent people, those are highly motivated people, with technical competence on par with anything others have to offer, how are the over-pampered American business people going to survive the onslaught? They won't because their focuses is not in competing is on tucking tail and running, that is not a good tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, are you a Tea Bagger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The shift toward libertarianism in this country has less to do with the Far Right's constant noisemaking and more to do with the government's obtuse willingness to make life worse for their constituents while claiming to be making every effort to improve things.
You don't have to be a "Tea Bagger" to realize that our "representatives" don't really look outside their own special interests and campaign funding for legislation ideas. Bush started this precipitous drop and Obama's helping make sure the whole thing ends up at the bottom of the ravine.
I think you'd like him to be a "Tea Bagger" because that would make it easier to dismiss everything out of hand as some sort of ultra-right-wing insanity. Unfortunately, you're going to have to keep considering the fact that there is some validity to his arguments.
I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that you're some sort of union-loving, left-wing Democrat just because you disagree with Mike's stance. There's no reason for me to believe this until you actually indicate it by something you write.
To sum up: disliking your government and distrusting its actions isn't ALWAYS a partisan act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama.
My feeling is he is the perfect person to run in California next time around for the house as a bagger. If he isn't one, he certainly manages to blend in with them pretty well.
As for dismissing him because he is a bagger, no. I dismiss him because he is a pompous, self assured, arrogant man. I don't need to see his Tea Bagger card to know. But it would be nice to know, just so that there is a little more clarity in the discussions here.
I mean, heck, he loves Ron Wyden, the democrat most likely to be confused for a bagger. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, I think most of the tea party people are insane. So are most other politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that all it takes to be a TBer? 'Cause, damn that all sounds good to me, and I hate both parties with near equal vitriol.
Seriously. Can anyone point out the flaws in adopting a strategy that is "Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to bat for the sake of the devil, there is one very valid argument. As government taxes and services diminish, social services will not neceassarily be able to provide a safety net for the poor, sick, or otherwise underprivileged.
Now I lean strongly on the side of personal responsibility, but I think it's unfair to say that you believe in personal responsibility, and then not admit that there is a chance that people of all kinds might go unhelped through either private or public assistance when hit hard enough by the misfortunes of life that affect anyone.
For me though, those chances are worth giving people the liberty to live peaceful lives by their own means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really?
Honestly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can debate its level of coverage and effectiveness, but you can't debate its existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama.
I am in full agreement with all the above. The name at the end doesn't matter. Obama picked up right where Bush left off in terms of spending, overreach and continued erosion of privacy and whatever was remaining of the Bill of Rights. While many of the Tea Party may agree with the above, the fact is that they are very much a partisan movement and that their selection of representatives (Bachmann, Palin, Armey, etc.) tends to represent a certain moralistic conservatism that is out of whack with what most "unaffiliated" libertarians actually believe.
For instance, good luck with having the Tea Party decide legalize drugs or privatize public systems. They're more likely to do more of the same. The only difference is that the beneficiaries might shift.
I dismiss him because he is a pompous, self assured, arrogant man. I don't need to see his Tea Bagger card to know. But it would be nice to know, just so that there is a little more clarity in the discussions here.
If you've already dismissed him, then why the hell would you even pretend to be seeking "more clarity in the discussion"?
If we get behind Ron Wyden here, it's because he's one of the few representatives who has actually stood up and tackled bad legislation that everyone else on Capitol Hill considered to be a foregone conclusion. He's one of the few that actually seems to be concerned with the government's attempts to insinuate itself deep into people's lives under the guise of "protecting artists" or "making the US safer."
Finally:
When you stand back and look at all of Mike's stands, they pretty much read like a Tea Bagger manifesto.
That's clearly wrong. Find me a copy of a Tea Bagger manifesto and we can do some comparisons.
If you don't care whether or not he's a Tea Bagger, then why do you care whether or not he's a Tea Bagger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other side, Mike is CLEARLY not a member of the Tea Party, and thinking he is simply ignoring the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html
And Mike is actually a lot closer to those stated goals than Bachman or Palin are, thats for DAMN sure.
This actually talks a lot about decentralization of government, which is a fairly frequent topic here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's an interesting point to what degree the TP focuses on fiscal issues and decentralized gov't despite having (IMO) a sizable portion of it composed by social conservatives who are ideological and assertive about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got it in one, though I'd like to point out that libertarian-types (or at least I) have a hard time finding a place in US politics because both parties have seek to use government to control me in ways that I think are overbearing or intrusive.
Heck the Tea Party (TP) itself sides with opinions that I think aren't very libertarian, like opposing gay marriage. Those who think that the TP is focused solely on fiscal issues and has no strong social conservative bent has never listened to any thing Michelle Bachman (founder of the House TP Caucus) has ever said.
But boy do I digress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly the problem. When people start thinking "libertarian" and shift to "Tea Party," they start equating people who want less government with people who want abortion and gay marriage outlawed. These are two very different groups.
Good luck finding a Tea Partier willing to end the War on Drugs or The War on Terrorism or actually any war, for that matter. There's a whole lot of "status quo" baked into these supposed "revolutionaries."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They wouldn't directly abolish the war on drugs, they would just gut the agencies that fight it, and turn that enforcement power over to the states.
My feeling is that much of what the Tea Party stands for pretty much lines up with where Mike is going these days. Either he is a bagger, or a bagger wannabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight.
What is funny is that he attracts so many socialist friends, because they mistake his views on piracy and such as some sort of hippie-dippy share the love view of the world. They don't realize that it's just another business model, just another way for him to sell his own views (and his time for interviews, conferences, and the like). That is a pure conservative / Republican thinking, and the baggers are just the far end of one of their corridors, right after the large closet that many of the Republican "men" hide in.
So no, I don't have any grand insight into Mike Masnick off the web, except to say that I haven't seen anything in public that plays any different from the persona he has built up on this site. Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's so fun when I can debunk you with a single link. Not that you'll admit it.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/12583214529/dan-snyder-helping-politicians-recogniz e-importance-federal-anti-slapp-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy crap Mike, that isn't even a good try. Bagger!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WOW, what a great souce, (I am right now because I claim I was right before).
Mike, Really, do you honestly expect people to take you seriously ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system to silence critics? Well, now that I type it out like that, I realize there's a high likelihood that you are.
and dislikes pretty much anything done at the Federal level.
Tell me, madam, what things you like that the Federal Government does.
Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight.
So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system? Oh, dang, this again. You *are* in favor of misusing the legal system.
What is funny is that he attracts so many socialist friends, because they mistake his views on piracy and such as some sort of hippie-dippy share the love view of the world.
This is pure conjecture, if not simply your personal fantasy.
They don't realize that it's just another business model, just another way for him to sell his own views (and his time for interviews, conferences, and the like). That is a pure conservative / Republican thinking, and the baggers are just the far end of one of their corridors, right after the large closet that many of the Republican "men" hide in.
This smells a lot like jealousy. And faintly of libel. I can only assume that you would have no issue if Mike brought a lawsuit against you, and brought it in Alaska-- since you clearly have no need of anti-SLAPP laws, nor lawsuits to be brought in proper jurisdictions.
So no, I don't have any grand insight into Mike Masnick off the web, except to say that I haven't seen anything in public that plays any different from the persona he has built up on this site.
Wait.. what? So, as far as you know he's exactly as he shows himself to be on this site. So.. about paragraph #3, where you suggest that he *isn't* like he shows himself to be...
Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!
I don't know what this sentence means. Did Mike push you down behind the swing set and rip your new dress?
It seems like you're a brave lady, heckling from the safety of anonymity without fear of having your life scrutinized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. I am also not a fan of laws that make it very, very hard to sue people who make defaming statements. anti-SLAPP laws raise the bar strongly in favor of "free speech", even if it is hurtful. It's the sort of think Mike loves.
"you're in favor of misusing the legal system? Oh, dang, this again. You *are* in favor of misusing the legal system"
Nope. In fact, I am very much against it. Mike rails against forum shopping for lawsuits, but has not problem with people "jurisdiction shopping" to hide their questionable / illegal acts. I don't want the legal system to be misused by either side. I find it appalling that Mike supports it, but only for pirates.
"his smells a lot like jealousy. And faintly of libel. I can only assume that you would have no issue if Mike brought a lawsuit against you, and brought it in Alaska-- since you clearly have no need of anti-SLAPP laws, nor lawsuits to be brought in proper jurisdictions."
Again, what is your point, exactly? He could find out like everyone else what jurisdiction means. He would also have to explain why my opinion rises up to libel, which is unlikely. I am only making the same observations that might be made in a newspaper, or respected online journal. I don't say "Mike is this", I say "Mike, are you this?".
"Did Mike push you down behind the swing set and rip your new dress?"
No, he ripped your new dress. That pretty much sums up your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anit-SLAPP laws are there so that when someone states the truth they are protected from lawsuits, even if the truth is hurtful. It isn't defamation if it is TRUE, and that is the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an actual libertarian (in the minarchist sense), you wouldn't know a Tea Bagger if they teabagged you for a month.
I don't see Mike as a hippy, except in some kind of Bizzarorama. Also, nice defamation you have there - be a shame if you were to lose your anonymity...like S.978 would do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rest of your comment, well, I bow to your experience in getting teabagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!"
I'm an absurdist, and even I can't beat you. That's saddening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I can say is that if this is how you read things, no wonder your comments are either ignorant or just totally off base.
Bully boy tactics that he uses are "online". I don't mention Mike suing anyone. Why the heck are you going there? Are you that stupid, or are you just a dickweed trying to bait me? Either way, I can now discount you as a total idiot who doesn't understand the basics of communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like ending corporate welfare, government handouts to big business and government granted monopolies? The tea baggers I know don't want to end those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Me, I'm liberal or libertarian depending on the issues. Social issues - liberal (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economic - lean liberal (higher taxes, sensible regulation and consumer protection, sensible spending - but get government out of things it doesn't do well that the private sector genuinely does better at). Civil rights - very libertarian (guns, speech, religion, marijuana).
The two party system doesn't work for me, they agree on too much stuff I disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, are you a Tea Bagger?
If you read Techdirt and think that I'm a Tea Bagger I would suggest you recalibrate your reading comprehension goggles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great comeback !!
may be you need to recalibrate your composition and writing ability, and your knowledge of we'll everything.
I can only guess that you have never worked for a company that requires skills and knowledge to be able to employ people and to make money.
Of course you do not have to know anything do you Mike, you can make money with NO IP, and no knowledge whatsoever.
And if you can do it, then everyone can do it, even if they lose the ability and skills to perform that work !!
How does that work Mike ?
There will come a time, (it allready is here for you) when you have skilled people not applying their skills (therefore not working, or employed) and you will not be able to buy technology developed in the US because no one will be in the US developing that technology.
But if you want to become a third world country, take Mikes advice and think that "everything is ok, we can give away our skills, developments and expertise and allow other countries to profit, but just not us.
It's ok that your unemployment is about 10%, you would rather borrow off china, and then give that money back to china buying the products that you want.
Sooner or later, (we'll now actually) that will come back to bite you, and if you cannot understand that basic economic fact, you lack even more IP that I considered.
And I have to ask you Mike, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ???
We all know what you dont know, but few can work out what you know, we know you opinion but that does not mean shit if you cannot display any real understanding..
Let me guess, you will respond to me by "you have not read what I said correctly". It is never you is it mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have recieved an infraction at Techdirt: 1. Apostophe Failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have recieved an infraction at Techdirt: 1. Apostophe Failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see, he's a Marxist, a liberal, anti competitive, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Conservative, Anarcho-Libertarian, and even Jewish.
But he's not a Tea Bagger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the stock market crashing, businesses need all the help they can get. The current environment does however basically guarantee that Protect IP will pass. No Senator is going to want to be viewed as anti-business now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was no real change, presidents come and go but things stay the same, you keep watching they come and go and eventually when you pass a certain age you will notice that too.
The good thing about all this crap is that it may lead to a search for a better "guy".
But really people should take matters into their own hands and start writing their own policies and laws and putting people who will implement those things for them but not at a local level at a national level, when people can do that, then they will get some needed changes, but make no mistakes people too can screw it up bad.
The reason why is culture, when your culture goes bad so does everything else that fallows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation Is Bad?
Huh? He actually said that? He's actually against innovation in other countries? And he views patents as the tool to suppress that innovation? Wow. Just wow. He actually admitted that the purpose of patents is to suppress innovation. What do you want to bet that that was one of those "inadvertent" admissions? I expect to see the patents apologists to be all over that one, trying to explain it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation Is Bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A rhetorical weapon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equation
FTFY ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can create jobs
To prove my point I talked about a business idea I had that would be incredibly popular (creating and installing autopilot kits in cars) but even once I got through the technological hurdles I'd be facing years of patent lawsuits from all the big automakers because they have patents on all the basic technology for it (adaptive cruise control, lane position monitoring, etc) but they aren't making it because they are paralyzed by liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CCTV
I am not being mean here. I just wanted to point out that this is unintentionally a very good pun. Fallows? Follows? Get it? Fallows, like empty fields?
Watching CCTV, they had an American Lawyer discussing China's new venture and focus on what they call "IPR". The moderator of the program pointed out China is still developing their Intellectal Property Laws. The American Bar Member pointed out there are more IP firms just in Chicago, then in all of China. They both agreed it was a growth area for China. Two days later some3 small chinese firm filed suit against Apple for Patent Infringement. I doubt if we have seen anything like what's coming next yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The eejit is an idiot".
That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I caught on to him back when he was a senator and going around claiming that he was against the AT&T warrantless wiretapping, and then turned right around and voted to give them immunity. It was pretty obvious even back then that he was an untrustworthy, say one thing, do another type of character. But people didn't care. They went gaga and voted for him anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
job killing nightmare for America
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. 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 chronology ]