IP Enforcement Czar Wants To Hear From You About Government's IP Enforcement Plan
from the speak-up dept
It's that time again. The White House's IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) -- often called the IP Czar -- is asking for public input on the upcoming "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement" that it will be releasing next year. The Joint Strategic Plan comes out every three years and is supposed to guide the federal government in how it handles priorities around intellectual property enforcement. Now, I recognize that the cynical among you will already be insisting that there is no value in responding to this, because the government is going to simply repeat the arguments of the legacy industries and its copyright extremists. However, in the past, these open comment periods have actually helped, and the two previous Joint Strategic Plans have not been as bad as expected. In 2010, we sent in our feedback and was pleasantly surprised that at least some of it was reflected in the plan. It recognized the importance of fair use and encouraging innovation. It also admitted that most studies on the impact of intellectual property on the economy were bogus.Then, the second report, issued in 2013, was even better and presented a much more balanced understanding of intellectual property law, and how over-enforcement and over-expansion could create real harms as well. It also points out that truly the best way to deal with problems around "piracy" is through greater innovation, rather than relying on enforcement. It doubled down on supporting fair use, and noted that it was working with the Copyright Office to release an "index of major fair use decisions" -- something that finally came out just a few months ago and is actually pretty damn good.
In other words, this report need not just be a playground for Hollywood types looking to ratchet things up.
Still: there are concerns. The first two reports were done by the original IPEC, Victoria Espinel, who left the office a few years ago. This latest report will be overseen by the new IPEC, Danny Marti, who has only been in the job a few months. And, unfortunately, in one of his first speeches, he trotted out pretty much all of the ridiculous and debunked copyright extremist tropes about the need for greater protection, exaggerating the economic impact of intellectual property and demanding more "respect" for intellectual property (rather than earning more respect for it).
It's also somewhat concerning that in his blog post asking for public comments, he cites one of the most debunked statistics around, from the US Chamber of Commerce, concerning the "worldwide market for counterfeit and pirated products," which he argues is $1.8 trillion. Having spent years debunking earlier claims of $200 billion, the idea that it's magically shot up to $1.8 trillion is insane. What's incredible is that the "methodology" for the $1.8 trillion is laughable, and it's a shame that Marti would cite it. The Chamber of Commerce just took the already debunked numbers from 2008 (which, in case you are wondering were actually based on a number someone just made up in the 1980s and which has never been checked) and then "projected" out to 2015. Really. And Marti quotes it as if it has some validity.
And he does this despite the fact that actual credible sources like the Government Accountability Office and the OECD have both insisted that there is no evidence that the issue of counterfeiting is anywhere near as big as the earlier problems stated. Furthermore, multiple studies have further shown that counterfeiting is very rarely a true "economic loss" as it's almost never a substitution good, but rather an aspirational purchase. That is, the person buying the fake Rolex isn't taking any money away from Rolex, because they can't afford to buy a real one. In fact, multiple studies have found that those who buy counterfeit products regularly go on to buy the real product later, when they can afford to. In fact, it appears the purchase of a counterfeit often gives them a closer bond with the brand itself. And, in the end, estimates have suggested that actual counterfeiting is probably somewhere around 2 to 3% of the big numbers thrown around by the Chamber of Commerce.
So, you have to wonder, if Marti is tossing around numbers from one of the world's largest lobbying organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce, rather than from well respected and credible sources like the Government Accountability Office and the OECD, just where he's coming from as he puts together this report.
Hopefully, people can submit thoughtful and well-argued comments based on the details set forth in the Federal Register and help point Marti and the IPEC office in the right direction. Such comments are due by October 16th.
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: copyright, counterfeiting, danny marti, enforcement, ipec, joint strategic plan, losses, patents, piracy, public comment, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's a waste of time.
Even if we, that is the public, get an "inch", we're so goddamn far back in miles nothing they do makes one damn bit of difference.
This "throw us a bone" is insulting on every level of "hearing" the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you think that then only the other side weighs in and policies get worse and worse and worse. That doesn't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They really do not want to hear our opinion, they are just ticking off a check box so they can throw it in our faces when we complain to them next time.
They have no intention of listening, it only becomes a future foil for them, I think we have all seen in here before!
They now get to say... well... we did ask for the public's opinion! The same rhetoric that both parties like to pull with this very line "I don't see the other guys coming up with anything" despite the fact there is more than enough ideas just most of them either stupid, or ideas that are actually good but one side dismisses because of some party line bullcrap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except last time, they actually did listen somewhat. So that kind of disproves that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you see what you're doing to yourself? They only listened "somewhat".
That's the kind of dismal attitude plaguing this fight, which is why I'm slowly taking myself out of it. I can't fight two sides anymore. It's depressing and time consuming.
The public has no say in these discussions and the entire purpose is merely to "throw us a bone", to which often always placates the masses to pretend they walked away with a "small victory".
Take a look at the history and you'll see the true issue. A "victory" tossed to us really did absolutely nothing to change a thing. And I must re-iterated, these changes are temporary and can be removed at any time.
That's "somewhat" for you, defined and to the point.
Why do you suppose you keep using the term "copyright czar"? It's no different than real czars, who throw the public a bone while still remain in complete and useless control.
This office serves no purpose but to be the bone thrower. It has no intention of fighting for the public's rights for copyright and it will never, ever change.
You can pretend all you want that "somewhat" is good enough, but it's not, and never will be.
This office can change, but it's not going to do so with the current staff.
So enjoy your "somewhat". Me, I'd rather win the war, not the battle whose outcome can be negated in 3 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They know it, we know it, but the game keeps rolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are are you fighting “two sides” again? First, though, who are the “two sides” you're fighting?Fill in the blanks.
(Personally, I'm fighting all the cheerful, hard-working people who have any optimism. I hate those fuckers.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's attitudes like yours that allow things to get worse without resistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand the frustration involved in this war, how it feels like slamming your head against a brick wall over and over. But the alternative is to just let the other side walk all over us, which isn't a realistic option at all. To bring about change, you must fight on every front that presents even an odium of opportunity.
Steel your resolve as Winston Churchill did when he famously said, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Additionally if entire sheets of paper are too expensive half sheets can be used and cut. Or even little slips with a website and a few words telling the reader what the website is.
A good thing to do is to see how presidential and other candidates (including local candidates, not just Congressional) get their messages out. How do they get exposure, what is it they do? It's not all through the mainstream media, now a days there are candidates that have been elected through Facebook. But often times there is more, they do rallies, pass out fliers, have local conventions, tour including local tours, etc... If more can be done to get more local communities involved in these issues to get more and more exposure this can go someplace. It's a lot of hard legwork though but really that's what's needed and lacking in this debate on the side of those that want to fix IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a waste of time
If you go into something trying to win then you might just win. And if you do it hard enough then your opponent might well think again about trying something else later.
If you go into something but don't even try to win then you've already lost.
You do nothing, you lose.
Which do you think is the best option?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If everyone who came to this website just put a simple comment on why they supported fair use and why they supported less criminalisation of piracy they would be flooded with reasons to do what we want and not what the big copyright supporters want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It wasn't the public outcry which started changing policy, it was a personal experience, which is often the case many come to "see the light".
The fact Wheeler did an about-face surprised everyone, especially those here at Techdirt who were concerned another player from "Big Corporation" had the front seat.
When Wheeler stated his reasons for changing the rules, everyone changed their opinions. The "Big Corporations" when from loving their shill to hating him while the public now loves him.
It can go down as one of the most unprecedented changes in FCC history, and all because of a personal experience. It's as though he was planning and calculating for many years just to pull this off.
Unfortunately, and as I've said many times before, the FCC is all bark and no bite. It may have the power to change definitions of our communication systems, but it has absolutely no power to control what happens to them.
Even if "net neutrality" passes 100% by the FCC, we're still going to see price gouging, caps, throttling, and other nefarious tactics taken because changing broadband into a utility doesn't negate pricing issues.
The FCC has no control in that arena, which befalls the FTC to investigate and punish as necessary, and we clearly see what a wonderful job they've done over the decades. "Here, AT&T, have a $100 million fine after making billions from your scam."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"the FCC is all bark and no bite."
Didn't the FCC take a 9 digit bite out of a corporation recently for falsely advertising "unlimited" or throttling recently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You and what electorate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except, last time, it didn't. They actually did improve the policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It takes tremendous effort to get even a small fraction of those people to change their minds about anything. But when they do hold an opinion…
You know why they had to kill off the vast herds of buffalo on the Great Plains? “Ain't a fence never been built 'd stop a buffler when he got his mind set on going somewheres.” (These days, we probably do have some-at better fence techology. Electrification, don'cha know.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every study, when Mike doesn't like the conclusion, is "ridiculous and debunked."
Is everything black-and-white in Mike's World?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're trying to imply something otherwise, you've failed at providing any sort of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
But seriously, do you read this site with your critical thought engaged? If you did you wouldn't need proof, it's blindingly obvious in what is written day after day. Take your blinkers off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam.
[ 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:
Then again, based on your posts you seem to be rather obsessively projecting your lack of thinking on everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not to say people on the other side of the fence are innocent, but if you think death threats have been one-sided, you are sorely mistaken.
Fuck man, if you honestly think the world's so black and white that the media narrative of misogynistic monsters is realistic in the slightest, then I have a bridge in Paris to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You've got the order backwards. He starts with the results, and if he likes them, it's a great study done by great people using great methodologies. The reverse is true if he doesn't like the results.
If you're trying to imply something otherwise, you've failed at providing any sort of evidence.
Evidence is easy, especially with somebody as intellectually dishonest as Mike.
Take, for example, the study that concluded that "patent trolls" cost the economy $29 Billion per year.
Mike loved the results: "James Bessen and Michael Meurer, the pre-eminent researchers looking into the problems of the patent system have come out with a new study showing that, in the US alone, patent trolls had a direct cost for companies of about $29 billion." Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/10452719493/29-billion-spent-dealing-with-patent-trolls-u s-alone-last-year.shtml
Great results implies "pre-eminent researchers," when you're Mike. Did Mike look at where they got their data? Of course not. Great results means no need for skepticism.
Yet, the flaws in that study have been pointed out to him. For example, here's me from over two years ago: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/03312722404/tale-two-studies-file-sharing-hurts-sales.sht ml#c617
I brought it up again this past July: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hires-paten t-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c191
If you actually look at the study, it makes clear that it got its data from RPX. RPX sells insurance to companies to protect against "patent trolls." It has a vested interest in the "troll problem" being perceived as large. Worse still, it's based on secret questions asked to some of its secret clients. The methodological mistakes are elementary. For example, one cannot extrapolate broadly when there's such selection bias. Many people have explained in detail what's wrong with the study. Does Mike care? Nope.
In July, Mike refused to look at where the data came from (RPX), and he instead insisted that the study was sound because the authors are great: "And the research was not by RPX but by James Bessen and Michael Meurer, two of the most respected voices in the space, whose work has been proven accurate time and time again. It is, of course, no surprise that some patent trolls have tried to attack it, but the overall methodology was indeed quite sound in demonstrating the extent of the problem." Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hires-paten t-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c273
I pointed out that the data was questionable, not the authors of the study who used the data: "Um, the data they based their research on was from RPX. If you were more skeptical, i.e., didn't just jump on it because you liked the way it sounded, you'd know this." Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hires-paten t-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c298
But Mike couldn't admit that the data was questionable, or even that it came from RPX (despite RPX being mentioned FOUR DOZEN times in the study itself). He instead made an excuse about how he had to run away because it was me making the point (anything but respond to the point directly): https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hires-paten t-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c331
That's just one study, but I think you get the gist. Mike isn't critical because he doesn't care about the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's really, really sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's really, really sad.
Just pointing out that Mike blindly accepts that study because he likes the conclusions. There are many methodological problems with that study, but Mike refuses to address any of them. He instead keeps repeating the claim that the study is great. That's directly relevant here where Mike is claiming studies he likes are great and ones he doesn't like are terrible. What's sad is that Mike is so black and white, unable to acknowledge or discuss any problems in the study. If he were intellectually honest, he'd actually dive into the criticisms of that study. But he's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, you are a terrible terrible liar. You should stop telling lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, I will go through each and every claim of yours that I'm a liar. Prove it. I dare you. I welcome the challenge.
Mike will never address my claims and evidence that he's intellectually dishonest. If he thought he could score a point against me, he'd be here defending himself. He can't so he's not.
Bawk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's another lie. Just because people have something else to do and they don't respond to everything you post doesn't mean they would respond if they could. Mike and the universe doesn't revolve around you. People are busy and have other things to do and you, being the self centered conceited person you are, expect that Mike would drop everything else he is doing and respond to your every last post because everything revolves around you. and if Mike doesn't respond to your every last nonsense post then he must be intellectually dishonest. You really need to stop thinking so highly of yourself.
Mike has responded to you several times and you ignore his responses. and now you come here and tell more lies that because he's not responding to you he can't. Maybe he can't respond to you because he doesn't have the time not because he doesn't have a reasonable answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain how I don't have a point? Mike is claiming that that study is great, while ignoring any criticisms about its data or methodology. How is it a waste of time to point out that Mike is failing to be skeptical? Can you actually make an argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of your points were already well addressed in the comments. Others can read them for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice cop out. Sadly, I expect nothing more Mike supporters such as yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's because everything I see from pro-IP extremists are nothing but nonsense. They don't even conduct studies, they pull numbers out of thin air or they somehow conflate completely unrelated numbers.
"Great results implies "pre-eminent researchers," when you're Mike. Did Mike look at where they got their data? Of course not. Great results means no need for skepticism."
Yes, here is where they got their data
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=18511900507101000410310507211902707401704700604105900 2118104070106085101026027101112025016100118110061032001116011114108080074016080011050064109082028069 080123070000013046008068102112064083094113124065122104005069119084007090029119022105113007022091& ;EXT=pdf
Read it, it's explained quite well. The methodology looks pretty sound. Sure it's only one study but it is a valid data point. This study uses relevant numbers, the survey is based on direct costs to those on the receiving end of patent problems. Are the results going to be perfect? Of course not. All studies have some shortcomings. but the point is that the data used is relevant and attempts to be as unbiased as the researchers can make them given their limited capabilities. All studies are an imperfect statistic.
Unlike the nonsense that pro-IP extremists come up with that's based on nothing or that's taking things that have absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property. Like grouping grocery store revenue with intellectual property somehow. See, the difference is that their methodology is not even based on numbers and when it is it's based on completely unrelated numbers. That's why their method is bogus. Unlike this that uses relevant numbers to make estimates.
and, to be honest, that 29 billion dollars in direct costs seems kinda conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if it's much higher.
"Evidence is easy, especially with somebody as intellectually dishonest as Mike."
Wow, you're one to speak. Here is another example of your disthonesty
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/03312722404/tale-two-studies-file-sharing-hurt s-sales.shtml#c1506
Most of your comments here are outright dishonest. But I don't expect much of you. Your dishonesty only makes your position look bad.
"If you actually look at the study, it makes clear that it got its data from RPX. RPX sells insurance to companies to protect against "patent trolls." It has a vested interest in the "troll problem" being perceived as large."
It has a vested interest in finding out the truth of the matter to figure out how to make their insurance policies. If the truth of the matter is that patent laws are costly then yes, as an insurance company, they absolutely have a vested interest in presenting that because it's costing them. But if patents weren't a problem then they wouldn't have any vested interest in portraying it as such because now it's not costing them anything. So yes, their vested interest is in the truth, at least when it comes to what patents cost them (and their clients) as an insurance company. and those costs are real.
It's also in a good position to know the problems. And note, the study was based on surveys of direct costs.
Furthermore, you (or some other pro-IP extremist) try to criticize the source of the data as having an anti-IP vested interest when, clearly, they are pro-IP. For example
"Nonsense. If the point was that the NVCA loves patents, then why would Mike say this: "So... it seemed really, really odd earlier this year, when a guy hired by the NVCA to appear at a Congressional hearing on patent reform argued against patent reform and suggested, if anything, that patent protections needed to be ratcheted up.""
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hires- patent-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c479
but you are much much too dishonest to point this out.
Their website, as quoted by someone (at least at the time) says
"As the U.S. increasingly becomes a high-tech, knowledge-based economy, the importance of patents grows exponentially as the frequency by which they are sought and enforced grows with each passing year. . . .
Significant venture capital investment is based on the existence of patents to protect an emerging company’s innovative idea and deter competitors from stealing their idea. If this investment is not protected through a strong patent system that acts as a deterrent on infringement, further investment in patent-reliant technology will decline."
Yet just because they have some criticisms against patent trolling all of a sudden you conclude they are too bias.
Sure, some of their members may not like patents but that's perhaps because their members were negatively impacted by them. and the survey and data reflects that. What, is the data not supposed to include those that were negatively impacted by patents? The whole point of the study is to gather information from everyone and include those that were negatively impacted by patents in order to get a broad view of things. and it's no surprise that those that were negatively impacted by patents don't like them. But your idea of a valid study is one that excludes those that were negatively impacted by patents from the study.
"Worse still, it's based on secret questions"
You are a terrible liar. If you lie at least try to make your lies somewhat believable. The questions weren't secret. The question being asked to its clients, as stated in that PDF, is what are their direct costs as a result of patent issues. They gathered the data from a wide range of companies and industries to make their estimate. Sounds pretty sound to me.
But here is a piece of advice. Since you are a very very bad liar you should just try to opt to be more honest. You don't make for a good liar so why bother even trying. You've been practicing telling lies for how long and you still completely suck at it. Your lies are just as transparent now as ever. Just give up with the lies, face it, you're just not a good liar.
"asked to some of its secret clients."
Its clients aren't secret it's just that the clients used were made anonymous. Surveys often include anonymous data points.
"The methodological mistakes are elementary. For example, one cannot extrapolate broadly when there's such selection bias."
The selection bias isn't that strong. Many many companies have insurance companies or are associated with insurance companies. This is just a study by one insurance company. Surely other companies have insurance companies that face similar issues. and surely companies without insurance companies face issues as well.
The study also includes a lot of other data as well. Read the PDF.
"Many people have explained in detail what's wrong with the study. Does Mike care? Nope."
No, you asserted there is something wrong with the study. No one actually pointed out anything wrong with it. Is it perfect? No study is. But it is a well conducted study that at least provides some useful analysis. Much better than the nonsense Hollywood puts out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, yes, the study includes those that were negatively impacted by patents. No surprise there. The very fact that an insurance company exists that specializes in patent troll litigation is a cost and shows how bad our system has gotten. How much does that insurance company gross? The direct cost of patents at least equals the amount that these patent insurance companies gross since it's the clients that are paying for these patent insurance companies, that money isn't going towards anything productive (aggregate output or more innovation), and the patent insurance companies couldn't exist had it not been for patents. So yes, this problem is very costly. Probably much more than the 29 billion stated but they were probably being very conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's look at where you attack my credibility and honesty. Unlike Mike, I can stand up for myself. Unlike Mike, I will answer your attacks directly.
You say:I'm not sure why you say "another," as I don't see the first. If I'm missing one, please let me know.
Here's what the comment you linked to says:So that's Karl claiming that Mike explained "exactly why [my] criticism was wrong."
Here's what the comment Karl linked to says:Nowhere in that comment does Mike explain why the data from RPX is unquestionable. Mike did not, as Karl had claimed, explain exactly why my criticism (which is reflected in the criticism of many others, as I have linked to elsewhere) is wrong. Mike just says the study is by Bessen and Meurer. No duh. My point is that the DATA is from RPX. Mike doesn't even acknowledge this to be true, much less that the method by which RPX collected that data is questionable (self-selected survey of secret customers using secret data from secret questions).
Thus Karl is wrong about Mike, and this doesn't show I'm dishonest. How am I wrong? Be specific. Use links. Use quotes. Make your case how I am dishonest, or retract your claim.
Let's work through this first claim of yours that I am dishonest, and then we can turn to the next one. I can do this all day long. I have nothing to hide. Unlike Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My point is that the DATA is from RPX."
Yeah, so?
"Nowhere in that comment does Mike explain why the data from RPX is unquestionable."
No such thing as unquestionable data. This is a dishonest strawman. All studies include uncertainty. All data includes uncertainty.
"Mike doesn't even acknowledge this to be true, much less that the method by which RPX collected that data is questionable"
Because it's not all that questionable. Is it perfect? No data is.
"(self-selected survey"
The survey question was inquiring into the direct costs of patent litigation. It was asking relevant clients about their costs. Seems pretty well selected as it includes relevant clients.
"of secret customers"
Anonymous, not secret, customers. Survey's often include anonymity.
"using secret data"
The data points are the direct costs that companies incurred from patent related issues.
"from secret questions)."
Again, the question was asking about the direct costs of patents to these companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't see what the issue is. That the individual companies and their peronal financial statements aren't included? You're just being ridiculous. Data is provided, read the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're actually interested in what's wrong with the study, do some research. People smarter than me have written about it. For example, See Schwartz & Kesan: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117421 Or see Wild: http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=454c1adc-52c3-4c2d-8981-e4716361f219 They are representative of the criticisms of the study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting fraud? Do you have something to back it up? The study was done by an independent researcher and the data was collected by an insurance company that, if anything, has an interest in ensuring the continuation of patent trolls. There doesn't seem to be a strong conflict of interest here. An insurance company is a convenient place to get this sort of data and so a researcher that was genuinely interested in the matter found a source that they can find relevant data. The company was nice enough to hand it over. To suggest that the data was doctored before being handed over is a tall claim and you better have some strong evidence. So far you have absolutely nothing.
"The mistakes are elementary."
You keep saying that but you haven't really pointed out any.
"The data set is small"
All data sets are relatively small compared to the entire picture but the data also includes more than just surveys. of the surveys it includes
"Between February and April 2012, RPX invited about 250 companies to participate in a survey of their NPE-related costs. The pool of invitees included RPX clients and non-client companies with whom RPX has relationships.
Most invitees were technology companies, but certain non-technology companies with NPE exposure were
also invited (for example retailers with e-commerce exposure). Participants provided information to the extent that doing so was consistent with their obligations to third parties. The information was aggregated and anonymized such that individual data was not disclosed."
I could quote it but it's pretty detailed in what it's included. The entire thing is about 54 pages of relevant information.
More data
"In addition to the survey, we also used a comprehensive database of NPE litigation developed by RPX. These NPE litigation statistics are based on cases coded Although RPX provided data for this study, RPX did not exercise control over the substance of our text. “830 Patent” in the PACER database which is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.29 In case counts, RPX excludes misfiles, non-patent, false marking and other non-core patent infringement cases. When a case is transferred, RPX counts it as one case and allocates it to the venue to which it was transferred. When several cases are consolidated into one, RPX counts it as one case but with multiple defendants. When a case is severed RPX counts it as separate cases. In defendant counts, RPX rolls up operating company subsidiaries into a parent entity (Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics count as one defendant)."
So, like I said, a lot of relevant comprehensive data (not just the data from the surveys) were used to make, what really looks like, a very conservative estimate.
"self-selection"
I'm not sure what you mean by self selection. The data was selected to include those that were harmed by patent trolls which makes sense if the question is what harm do patent trolls cause on the economy.
"so that means it can't be extrapolated accurately."
It's an estimate. Sure no estimate is perfect but it looks like a rather conservative estimate. The methodology seems rather sound and includes a wide array of data (not just the surveys) and leans towards the conservative side (as you can clearly see by reading through it).
"If you're actually interested in what's wrong with the study, do some research."
You don't seem to know what's wrong with it (because there isn't much wrong with it). Is it perfect? No study is. But it looks like an honest attempt to come up with a conservative estimate of patent troll damage. Not perfect, sure, but no study is perfect.
"People smarter than me have written about it."
Not saying much.
"For example, See Schwartz & Kesan: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117421 Or see Wild: http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=454c1adc-52c3-4c2d-8981-e4716361f219 They are representative of the criticisms of the study."
I'm waiting for you to say something substantial. You still haven't. Instead you point to other people who have also said nothing substantial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IOW, someone (the researcher) went through a lot of trouble to analyze and compile this very comprehensive study. Someone that doesn't seem to have anything to gain personally. A reasonable explanation for this is that the researcher is genuinely interested in investigating the matter and delivering the truth. So if you are suggesting fraud of some sort you had better have some very strong evidence.
[ 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:
You lost your benefit of the doubt and any suggestion of your "honesty" and "credibility" years ago. Get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 8th, 2015 @ 2:30pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 8th, 2015 @ 2:30pm
Careful! If Mike decides to start censoring his critics again, he might do what he did before when he had all comments with that word run through the spam filter so he could approve them first. Free speech! I don't know if he's still doing it, but he had it set just a few weeks ago so that you couldn't use his last name without his prior approval. Permission culture!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Small wonder few people respect copyright. Although by "respect", you really mean blind, irrational fanaticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 8th, 2015 @ 2:30pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to go all recursively meta on you, but wtf does “meaningful” mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have every reason to expect that the government will have people actually reading every single one of the comments that are received. Further, it is even likely that public comments which bring up substantive points will indeed be filtered up to higher levels, and that those points will actually be formally addressed in formation of the plan.
The government uses notice-and-comment systems all over the place. And yeah—public comments do indeed have some visible effect.
But… I've grown less idealistic about our government, and much more cynical as I've gotten older. I don't want to mislead you into thinking that public comments have more of an effect than they actually do. Sometimes, even though you provide comment to the government, and the government responds to your comment, well… Maybe more than just sometimes, often…
To really have an impact, at the very least, you need a fair number of people who agree with you. Even then… well…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence, not emotion
The maximalists always go with the emotional plea('Won't you think of the starving artists?'), when what I want to see used for law making are numbers, put together by multiple, independent groups, studying both past results from the law, and making evidence based predictions on future effects of proposed laws.
If they want to change the law, or just the 'guidelines', I want it based upon evidence, not blatantly bogus emotional pleas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence, not emotion
https://vimeo.com/91091359
It outlines very clearly the inherent perils of a numbers based system, with a real example in the British National Health System. (via John Nash, Game Theory and the cold war).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence, not emotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence, not emotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence, not emotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A dummy's take
de-activate MANY government agencies.
go through these oath breakers and * CZAR's phone records instead
Go through treasury and fed and bankster phone records instead.
It ain't the people out here committing this TREASON, MURDER, HEALTH DISASTER AND THEFT!
It's the OFFICIALS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]