Pegging on an extreme position again!
I totally agree that large entity patents, by and large, stifle innovation. That is what they are intended to do, to "protect" a business model. I know of NO cases where they have driven innovation, or even encouraged new ideas.
Small entity patents, which is IMO what the founders intended (they evidently saw the risks we now have realized in large entity patents, but also saw the benefits of a properly done IP system), definitely encourage innovation. One of my clients told me "I can't proceed on this until we have filed a patent; I would simply lose the money I must put into it to develop it."
I have seen this again and again; true innovation can be expensive and take a lot of time; and if you can't protect it for a reasonable time, you are far better off letting the idea die.
The people Andrew Carnegie stole "his" steel making process from learned that the hard way.
Oh, wait! No one studies history - that's why they are "doomed to repeat it".
While I am an IP attorney (also naively referred to as "patent" attorney, thereby ignoring trademarks, etc.), I totally agree this is nefarious and should be combated.
While I am quite sure there are valid reasons for IP, and that used wisely it does "promote the general welfare", this sort of thing needs to be stopped by whatever means are required!
Good article, and I support any effort to stop this sort of abuse.
Excellent article! You have vindicated yourself.
I have long been sympathetic to this issue; feeling that people who can afford to pay should, but the poor (especially in other countries, where there is limited access to second-hand goods) are justified in finding a way around abusive, discriminatory rules and regulations.
Ummm, as usual, "pegging" without further investigation or discussion.
If the camera was simply "forgotten" by NASA (that is, they "knew or should have known") of course, statute of limitations or laches (actually both) apply.
If NASA didn't know where the camera was (they have a paper trail that shows as far as they knew, it just disappeared), of course NOT!
You should know that - you appear to have absorbed a considerable amount of legal expertise (or think you did).
Let's be clear, and discontinue the ignorant fear of mercury. The researcher died of exposure to METHYLATED MERCURY!
Sure, mercury can be bad; even dangerous - but the extreme events listed were all due to COMPOUNDS of mercury; so, for example, mercury in vaccines and tooth fillings, while banned now, and rightfully so, are NOT the villains they are assumed
to be by people who should know to "speak when you know something about what you are saying!"
"...remaining members of the Mongols claimed that they collectively owned the logo, and the government couldn't just seize it. The government, in turn, claims that the trademark is actually held by just one guy, who has already pleaded guilty to various charges."
First, a TM cannot be held by "collective ownership", it would have to be an entity (the "Mongols?").
Second, if the "one guy" is guilty of "stuff", what does that have to do with trademark?
"To be honest, I've always found statutes or rules against "the unauthorized practice of law" to be a bit questionable in general. People should be able to avail themselves of the legal system without a lawyer, if they so choose (even if it's not very smart), and requiring one to become "licensed" has always struck me as much more of a method of limiting supply (and increasing costs), rather than any real attempt to maintain quality"
WHAT? I don't know of a state where you CAN'T. The license is required if you represent someone else for hire!
In fact, it is fairly common in some cases for someone to hire a lawyer for legal advice ONLY, and actually try the case themselves (and often successfully).
The license is to protect the COURTS, BTW. unlicensed parties tend to take large amounts of time, trying to introduce material not allowed, making frivolous pleadings, etc. Some judges fall just short of insisting that an ex parte party have access to legal advice, as well as someone who understands the local rules, otherwise, very little gets done.
Where to start? In spite of the overall very high quality of Techdirt blogs, there's this:
1. The HOUSE approving a bill does NOT make it ready for the President to sign!
2. First to invent CLEARLY has problems, with massive abuse. Primarily, though, it is a question of fairness, as the world goes, so should we.
3. We are retaining the Provisional Patent Application, so we do NOT have the need to rush to the patent office!
4. Yes, independent inventors should be protected - but wow! Would that be abused! You know it would!
I am a veteran, and I was quite willing to give my life for my country, which I admired deeply.
However, this sounds more like the gestapo under Hitler than American. I am not sure I would be willing to serve, and certainly not willing to "give up my life", for a country that allows such things.
I can only hope the American people (with the help of the blogs - certainly no help from the news media!) will someday come to their senses, and take steps to stop this sort of thing.
Even as an IP attorney, I can say with considerable assurance, software patents, along with copyright, are an unmitigated harm to our society, and would be to theirs.
It is really discouraging to see this post.
We don't really know all the facts, we have no idea if ConnectU would have been successful if not short-circuited by Facebook, we don't really know much of anything in depth, but since one of the antagonists has more money, "he right!".
Same thing happened with Carnegie. After having more than a hundred innocent people murdered to increase his fortune, he became the "great philanthropist". Why? The murdered people were poor, he was fabulously wealthy, so "he right!"
The US Congress does this on almost EVERY bill, and when an attempt was made to pass a line veto bill to stop that practice, the US voters rejected it. So how is it worse for Mexico?
So, let's understand this. In one case, some people got together and combined rice strains. They had no particular motivation for doing so, so it likely took a long time for them to do it (why should they?).
If there had been a (reasonable) IP system, they would have had a motivation for doing it, and doing it right away (note that I am not talking about our IP system, which is not reasonable).
We would have had superior rice earlier, and might have progressed more than we have.
But wait! We aren't interested in being reasonable, our only motivation is to prove that since the present system is defective, any possible system under any circumstances is unreasonable! So, time to turn off our brains.
AGAIN (and again and again and ...):
CLIENTS decide what to do, and lawyers implement that decision. I have a mental picture of a lawyer (and I am in that exact position at this time, with a client) saying "I don't think you should do that" and the client saying "Do it", though the only part I am sure is accurate is the public, and bloggers like you, saying "What was that lawyer (???) thinking of?".
This seems to be crystal clear to you in blogging, why is it so hard to understand in other professions?
Gee, I hope SETI succeeds; there must be some intelligence in this universe SOMEWHERE; though clearly not here.
On the post: Couple Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Via Dubious Claims
are there penalties for trying to mislead the USPTO in a trademark filing?
So far as I know, only disallowing the Trademark, but there should be more.
At a minimum the lawyer should be sanctioned.
On the post: Debunking Some Big Myths About Patents
Patents and myths
I totally agree that large entity patents, by and large, stifle innovation. That is what they are intended to do, to "protect" a business model. I know of NO cases where they have driven innovation, or even encouraged new ideas.
Small entity patents, which is IMO what the founders intended (they evidently saw the risks we now have realized in large entity patents, but also saw the benefits of a properly done IP system), definitely encourage innovation. One of my clients told me "I can't proceed on this until we have filed a patent; I would simply lose the money I must put into it to develop it."
I have seen this again and again; true innovation can be expensive and take a lot of time; and if you can't protect it for a reasonable time, you are far better off letting the idea die.
The people Andrew Carnegie stole "his" steel making process from learned that the hard way.
Oh, wait! No one studies history - that's why they are "doomed to repeat it".
On the post: Dear Musicians: Once Again, Politicians Can Probably Play Your Songs At Events Without Your Permission
Musicians who don't like politicians
On the post: Nortel Patents Sold For $4.5 Billion To Apple, EMC, Microsoft, RIM, Ericsson & Sony
Nortel patents
While I am quite sure there are valid reasons for IP, and that used wisely it does "promote the general welfare", this sort of thing needs to be stopped by whatever means are required!
Good article, and I support any effort to stop this sort of abuse.
On the post: Why Piracy Happens: Because No One In Mexico Thinks Tron Legacy Is Worth Paying $136
IP in developing countries
I have long been sympathetic to this issue; feeling that people who can afford to pay should, but the poor (especially in other countries, where there is limited access to second-hand goods) are justified in finding a way around abusive, discriminatory rules and regulations.
On the post: NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
Astronaut's camera
If the camera was simply "forgotten" by NASA (that is, they "knew or should have known") of course, statute of limitations or laches (actually both) apply.
If NASA didn't know where the camera was (they have a paper trail that shows as far as they knew, it just disappeared), of course NOT!
You should know that - you appear to have absorbed a considerable amount of legal expertise (or think you did).
On the post: Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System
SAIC
On the post: DailyDirt: Deadly Lab Accidents
Mercury poisoning
Sure, mercury can be bad; even dangerous - but the extreme events listed were all due to COMPOUNDS of mercury; so, for example, mercury in vaccines and tooth fillings, while banned now, and rightfully so, are NOT the villains they are assumed
to be by people who should know to "speak when you know something about what you are saying!"
On the post: Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
Mongols TM
First, a TM cannot be held by "collective ownership", it would have to be an entity (the "Mongols?").
Second, if the "one guy" is guilty of "stuff", what does that have to do with trademark?
On the post: Petition To South Carolina Supreme Court Charges Righthaven With Unauthorized Practice Of Law
Righthaven in South Carolina
WHAT? I don't know of a state where you CAN'T. The license is required if you represent someone else for hire!
In fact, it is fairly common in some cases for someone to hire a lawyer for legal advice ONLY, and actually try the case themselves (and often successfully).
The license is to protect the COURTS, BTW. unlicensed parties tend to take large amounts of time, trying to introduce material not allowed, making frivolous pleadings, etc. Some judges fall just short of insisting that an ex parte party have access to legal advice, as well as someone who understands the local rules, otherwise, very little gets done.
On the post: Did Congressional Debate Over Patent Reform Bill Open Up A Backdoor For An Independent Inventor Defense?
Patent reform
1. The HOUSE approving a bill does NOT make it ready for the President to sign!
2. First to invent CLEARLY has problems, with massive abuse. Primarily, though, it is a question of fairness, as the world goes, so should we.
3. We are retaining the Provisional Patent Application, so we do NOT have the need to rush to the patent office!
4. Yes, independent inventors should be protected - but wow! Would that be abused! You know it would!
On the post: Australia, Once Again, Seeks To Censor The Internet
Australian censorship
On the post: So The FBI Can Just Take A Copy Of All Instapaper User Data With No Recourse?
FBI seizures
However, this sounds more like the gestapo under Hitler than American. I am not sure I would be willing to serve, and certainly not willing to "give up my life", for a country that allows such things.
I can only hope the American people (with the help of the blogs - certainly no help from the news media!) will someday come to their senses, and take steps to stop this sort of thing.
On the post: UK Lobbyists Claim UK Software Industry In Trouble Because It Doesn't Have Software Patents
Software patents in the UK
On the post: Apple Goes After Open Source Startup For Daring To Use The Term 'App Store'
App store alternative
On the post: Winklevii Trying Again: Suing Facebook Yet Again With A Different Argument
Winklevii
We don't really know all the facts, we have no idea if ConnectU would have been successful if not short-circuited by Facebook, we don't really know much of anything in depth, but since one of the antagonists has more money, "he right!".
Same thing happened with Carnegie. After having more than a hundred innocent people murdered to increase his fortune, he became the "great philanthropist". Why? The murdered people were poor, he was fabulously wealthy, so "he right!"
On the post: Mexican Congress Says No To ACTA
Rolling different bills into one.
On the post: Intellectual Property Infringement: That's Why We Have This Rice To Eat Today
Why we have a (superior) rice to eat today
If there had been a (reasonable) IP system, they would have had a motivation for doing it, and doing it right away (note that I am not talking about our IP system, which is not reasonable).
We would have had superior rice earlier, and might have progressed more than we have.
But wait! We aren't interested in being reasonable, our only motivation is to prove that since the present system is defective, any possible system under any circumstances is unreasonable! So, time to turn off our brains.
On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All
Killing the messenger
CLIENTS decide what to do, and lawyers implement that decision. I have a mental picture of a lawyer (and I am in that exact position at this time, with a client) saying "I don't think you should do that" and the client saying "Do it", though the only part I am sure is accurate is the public, and bloggers like you, saying "What was that lawyer (???) thinking of?".
This seems to be crystal clear to you in blogging, why is it so hard to understand in other professions?
Gee, I hope SETI succeeds; there must be some intelligence in this universe SOMEWHERE; though clearly not here.
On the post: Sony Continues Suing People Who Help Others Modify Their PS3s
Sony and PS3 madness
Have you considered a "call to arms" to find funds to help the German guy?
Next >>