Let's not forget that most of us wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to build a cell phone. Indeed, 20 years ago, there weren't really many cellphones at all.
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Let's not forget that most of us wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to build a cell phone. Indeed, 20 years ago, there weren't really many cellphones at all.
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Let's not forget that most of us wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to build a cell phone. Indeed, 20 years ago, there weren't really many cellphones at all.
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Let's not forget that most of us wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to build a cell phone. Indeed, 20 years ago, there weren't really many cellphones at all.
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Some patent scofflaws like to argue that patents hurt consumers, because they create monopoly pricing without competition. That is also a false argument.
First, patents don't prevent competitors from developing competing products. A patent only protects one product. Others are always free to develop better mousetraps and sell them at lower prices.
Second, to the extent that patents do enable a patentee to monopolize the supply chain and customers for his particular product offering, they have a cost reducing impact on that product, not a cost increasing impact, because they allow the patentee to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
For example, if 10 different vendors split a market 10 ways, then each will only achieve an economy of scale of equal to 10% of the volume of the market for that product. If, on the other hand, the patent is respected, then the patentee can achieve a lower cost of production, because the patentee produces at 10X the volume, or 100% market share.
In practice, the best example of the power of patents to reduce costs and make a product more available to consumers, is none other than Henry Ford. He was a prolific inventor, with 163 patents, which helped to enable him and his investors to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
Had there been, for example, no patents at all in the early years of the auto industry, then the industry would've been extremely fragmented, and none of the companies would've been able to achieve the large market share and product volumes needed to reduce the unit cost and make autos more widely available.
Patents give an inventor, entrepreneur, and his investors that ability to consolidate the supply chain for their product in a manner that reduces the costs of production, and makes the product more available to consumers, not less.
And, at the same time, the other competitors are still free to develop a better mousetrap. They just can't copy the patentee's mousetrap. That's all.
Contrary to the assertions of patent pirates and would-be pirates who want to weaken patent law, devalue the contributions of scientists and inventors, and fragment industries to the detriment of consumers and to their own personal benefit, patents are not anti-competitive, nor do they produce higher pricing in the long run.
Some patent scofflaws like to argue that patents hurt consumers, because they create monopoly pricing without competition. That is also a false argument.
First, patents don't prevent competitors from developing competing products. A patent only protects one product. Others are always free to develop better mousetraps and sell them at lower prices.
Second, to the extent that patents do enable a patentee to monopolize the supply chain and customers for his particular product offering, they have a cost reducing impact on that product, not a cost increasing impact, because they allow the patentee to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
For example, if 10 different vendors split a market 10 ways, then each will only achieve an economy of scale of equal to 10% of the volume of the market for that product. If, on the other hand, the patent is respected, then the patentee can achieve a lower cost of production, because the patentee produces at 10X the volume, or 100% market share.
In practice, the best example of the power of patents to reduce costs and make a product more available to consumers, is none other than Henry Ford. He was a prolific inventor, with 163 patents, which helped to enable him and his investors to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
Had there been, for example, no patents at all in the early years of the auto industry, then the industry would've been extremely fragmented, and none of the companies would've been able to achieve the large market share and product volumes needed to reduce the unit cost and make autos more widely available.
Patents give an inventor, entrepreneur, and his investors that ability to consolidate the supply chain for their product in a manner that reduces the costs of production, and makes the product more available to consumers, not less.
And, at the same time, the other competitors are still free to develop a better mousetrap. They just can't copy the patentee's mousetrap. That's all.
Contrary to the assertions of patent pirates and would-be pirates who want to weaken patent law, devalue the contributions of scientists and inventors, and fragment industries to the detriment of consumers and to their own personal benefit, patents are not anti-competitive, nor do they produce higher pricing in the long run.
To the undereducated reader, a diagram like that depicted above can and does appear to be a maze of wasteful litigation on first glance, which all most readers will give it.
But, to the real inventors of the true advances that enabled cell phone technologies and companies to even exist, that maze can probably be explained very clearly.
To the real inventors the true advances that enabled cell phone technologies and companies to even exist, there is probably quite a bit at stake, including reputation, earnings, profits, and plain old justice.
Those real inventors and their investors risked capital on new technologies, only to be pirated by competitors with impunity. To those real inventors and their investors, patent litigation is the only means to justice against those who would pirate their technologies.
Patents, and patent litigation, are the means of protecting new innovation on its way to market, just like US maritime law and the US Navy protects tankers full of oil on their way to market.
Those who try to weaken patents and patent enforcement with a wave of the hand and a scoffing remark about the wastefulness of litigation are simply trying to reduce the penalties for their misdeeds. They are trying to get away with murder.
Those who scoff at patents as frivilous litigation tend to be the less technological types, who disrespect and devalue scientists, and want to pirate the work of scientists with impunity.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Pirate Hater.
Patent Thicket or Pirate Cove?
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Patent Thicket or Pirate Cove?
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Patent Thicket or Pirate Cove?
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
Patent Thicket or Pirate Cove?
There has been true innovation and invention that has enabled this industry. Of that, there can be no question.
And, those who invented those true, enabling inventions deserve credit, respect, and strong patent rights.
Those who violate those rights and that respect are the ones who deserve disrespect, not the inventors and their lawyers.
To portray someone who invented, for example, an important new computer chip that advances cell phone technology as simply a 'troll' who contributes nothing but frivilous litigation to the economy is rude, to say the least, and more to the point, very disingenuous, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
Those who seek to advance the cause of piracy by weakening patents, labeling inventors as 'trolls', and otherwise devalue the work of scientific advancement are the low lives of society, not the inventors.
Is it any wonder that the US is falling behind in science, when smart, diligent people are bullied throughout their lives ... first in grade school, and then right on up through to their days as inventors, there are bullies out there seeking to put them down, for no reason other than lifting their own, less-skilled selves up.
The Value of Patents to The Consumer
First, patents don't prevent competitors from developing competing products. A patent only protects one product. Others are always free to develop better mousetraps and sell them at lower prices.
Second, to the extent that patents do enable a patentee to monopolize the supply chain and customers for his particular product offering, they have a cost reducing impact on that product, not a cost increasing impact, because they allow the patentee to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
For example, if 10 different vendors split a market 10 ways, then each will only achieve an economy of scale of equal to 10% of the volume of the market for that product. If, on the other hand, the patent is respected, then the patentee can achieve a lower cost of production, because the patentee produces at 10X the volume, or 100% market share.
In practice, the best example of the power of patents to reduce costs and make a product more available to consumers, is none other than Henry Ford. He was a prolific inventor, with 163 patents, which helped to enable him and his investors to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
Had there been, for example, no patents at all in the early years of the auto industry, then the industry would've been extremely fragmented, and none of the companies would've been able to achieve the large market share and product volumes needed to reduce the unit cost and make autos more widely available.
Patents give an inventor, entrepreneur, and his investors that ability to consolidate the supply chain for their product in a manner that reduces the costs of production, and makes the product more available to consumers, not less.
And, at the same time, the other competitors are still free to develop a better mousetrap. They just can't copy the patentee's mousetrap. That's all.
Contrary to the assertions of patent pirates and would-be pirates who want to weaken patent law, devalue the contributions of scientists and inventors, and fragment industries to the detriment of consumers and to their own personal benefit, patents are not anti-competitive, nor do they produce higher pricing in the long run.
The Value of Patents to The Consumer
First, patents don't prevent competitors from developing competing products. A patent only protects one product. Others are always free to develop better mousetraps and sell them at lower prices.
Second, to the extent that patents do enable a patentee to monopolize the supply chain and customers for his particular product offering, they have a cost reducing impact on that product, not a cost increasing impact, because they allow the patentee to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
For example, if 10 different vendors split a market 10 ways, then each will only achieve an economy of scale of equal to 10% of the volume of the market for that product. If, on the other hand, the patent is respected, then the patentee can achieve a lower cost of production, because the patentee produces at 10X the volume, or 100% market share.
In practice, the best example of the power of patents to reduce costs and make a product more available to consumers, is none other than Henry Ford. He was a prolific inventor, with 163 patents, which helped to enable him and his investors to achieve greater economies of scale in manufacturing.
Had there been, for example, no patents at all in the early years of the auto industry, then the industry would've been extremely fragmented, and none of the companies would've been able to achieve the large market share and product volumes needed to reduce the unit cost and make autos more widely available.
Patents give an inventor, entrepreneur, and his investors that ability to consolidate the supply chain for their product in a manner that reduces the costs of production, and makes the product more available to consumers, not less.
And, at the same time, the other competitors are still free to develop a better mousetrap. They just can't copy the patentee's mousetrap. That's all.
Contrary to the assertions of patent pirates and would-be pirates who want to weaken patent law, devalue the contributions of scientists and inventors, and fragment industries to the detriment of consumers and to their own personal benefit, patents are not anti-competitive, nor do they produce higher pricing in the long run.
Patent Thicket
But, to the real inventors of the true advances that enabled cell phone technologies and companies to even exist, that maze can probably be explained very clearly.
To the real inventors the true advances that enabled cell phone technologies and companies to even exist, there is probably quite a bit at stake, including reputation, earnings, profits, and plain old justice.
Those real inventors and their investors risked capital on new technologies, only to be pirated by competitors with impunity. To those real inventors and their investors, patent litigation is the only means to justice against those who would pirate their technologies.
Patents, and patent litigation, are the means of protecting new innovation on its way to market, just like US maritime law and the US Navy protects tankers full of oil on their way to market.
Those who try to weaken patents and patent enforcement with a wave of the hand and a scoffing remark about the wastefulness of litigation are simply trying to reduce the penalties for their misdeeds. They are trying to get away with murder.
Those who scoff at patents as frivilous litigation tend to be the less technological types, who disrespect and devalue scientists, and want to pirate the work of scientists with impunity.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Pirate Hater.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt