What foolishness Mr. Khanna - on very same day that the US Supreme Court redefined marriage to include homosexuals after 6000 years, you try to convince us the redefinition of property to include patents, trademarks, copyrights, tradesecret and tradedress from Jefferson's theory shouldn't have been done in the 100 years after Jefferson. You don't have a leg to stand on there.
"We believe H.R. 9 will create unintended consequences that will discourage investment in innovation and entrepreneurship by making it more difficult for any patent-reliant startup to defend their intellectual property. The net result would have a chilling effect on the innovation ecosystem, threatening the crown jewel of the broader U.S. economy and a key driver of American job creation.”
"We believe H.R. 9 will create unintended consequences that will discourage investment in innovation and entrepreneurship by making it more difficult for any patent-reliant startup to defend their intellectual property. The net result would have a chilling effect on the innovation ecosystem, threatening the crown jewel of the broader U.S. economy and a key driver of American job creation.”
I did not say we are untouchable, if we don't have patents, anyone can steal our invention from us, especially Big Tech once they figure out this is a multi-billion dollar market. Masnick presumed we only have an idea - that's not true, we have started sales, and eventually the profit margins on our products will be figured out, and all kinds of companies will want to copy our products. But how can we stop them when somewhere around 85% of the patent claims in Inter Partes Review are being invalidated, that leaves us with a less then 85% chance of having any patent claims to enforce. (the best and most likely infringed claims are being invalidated at a greater rate of 85%). So, this board here is telling me too bad after $1 mil in cash and $2.5 mil in sweat equity over 7 years, and a little bit of genius on the part of our CTO that we should stand by and watch Big Tech copy our products and use their big marketing and financing resources to squash us. How is that great ?
And I never said "if you try to improve on the laws we currently have". What a snarky dishonest way to twist my words. I have never once had the idea that you are trying to "improve on the laws we have". All I hear on this website is destruction of patents.
Oh, the talking head shows up, telling me how to run a business. Well, Mr. Masnick, once again you presume incorrectly. We have sales, and so do our competitors. Want to take another swipe ? We are in a niche of a larger market that has gotten a lot of attention by Google, Microsoft, there is even an entire accelerator devoted exclusively to the larger market that we are in, and we are currently in discussion with a PE group for an initial $13 mil investment. I own 1/5 of that. And that's not my only equity position. What a joke you are. Anything else you want to tell me ?
There are only 2 other companies in our field, unless someone came up with a better system and never introduced it into the marketplace, we can be certain that ours works much better than any other system.
That IS a stupid patent, lots of reasons why that isn't enforceable. In the real world, lots of nonprofits and legal clinics help people with stupid lawsuits, and in this case EFF is taking up the cause. This is a nuisance lawsuit, such as slip and fall lawsuits, and over time the courts and industries have learned how to deal with these (going to nonprofits such as EFF and law school legal clinics), which is now happening too in the tech world.
But people on this website want to kill all patent lawsuits including the one's that my companies will file when we find out that Siemens, GE, Honeywell, Google, Microsoft and Apple have stolen out best ideas that the have spent $1mil in cash and $2.5 mil in time developing into products that are way better than anything else out there in the market.
No one would think of Intellectual Ventures as the small guy, but why throw us in with them; along with other larger manufacturers ?
How about limiting patent enforcement to current or former manufacturers of the invention in the patent ? I know that would kill the value of patents for us if Big Tech stole our inventions and drove us out of business and we wanted to sell our patents to Intellectual Ventures, but it's lot better than killing patents on a large-scale basis for everybody.
I AM the small guy. I own 20% of that company that has had $1 mil invested by a man who wants the smarthome technology to help wounded veterans in their homes.
Big Tech does not want patents at all. Haven't you figured that out? Look at the CCIA and the CEA and their lobbying against patents. Have you ever noticed that none of their legislation has nothing to do with companies that don't manufacture the inventions in the patents, their laws affect ALL patent owners, and don't tell me that after $400 mil in lobbying by Big Tech in 2013 that was just an oversight.
Well, congratulations for shilling for Big Tech. It's all about Big Tech theft of inventions from small companies. Are they paying you or do just believe that Big Tech will return the favor of your support?
By no small coincidence, at the same minute that I received email notice of your comment, I received a email from one of the shareholders and CTO of one of my small tech startup holdings about the new product he is developing that we fully expect Big Tech to copy at their will and just pay some attorneys to destroy our patents if we try to sue them.
correction: Masnick is also paid a mouthpiece for the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), another industry trade group of invention thieves.
Masnick and Khanna are amateurs at patents, neither have any experience in patents, not even an educational background that would give them any credibility in patents. In particular, Khanna's education has been at universities that hate private ownership and constantly advocate for gov't control of everything. I personally have worked as an employee of the federal govt and for a large contractor of the federal gov't, and I have seen the worst idiocy of my entire career at those 2 places, and here we have talking heads Masnick and Khanna telling us to take private property from companies and that somehow putting control of these inventions in the hands of the federal gov't will be better for the world.
Masnick and Khanna have only a cursory academic knowledge of the patent world, neither of them have developed a hardware or software product with their brains and hands, they have never drafted and prosecuted a patent for a small tech company that has put millions of dollars into the invention, they have never negotiated a license of a patent with a company that is stealing the invention from the inventor, they have never drafted a Markman claim chart, they have never participated in federal court oral arguments, BUT they have spent a lot of time absorbing nonsense from nitwits at Ivy schools. Masnick and Khanna think that the people who invent our great computer products have also just died and passed the torch of opinion to Masnick and Khanna.
I am shareholder of a number of small tech startups that have in aggregate invested over $10 million in new harware and software products, only to have nit-wits like Masnick and Khanna help run a campaign of half-truths against companies and inventors that have patents in order to stop the members of the Consumer Electronics Assoc from stealing all of our good ideas that we developed through a lot of blood, sweat and tears and cash.
2 of the small tech startups I am involved with will be hiring alot of people in the future, and i will make sure that none of our new-hires have attended the universities that Masnick and Khanna have attended.
Masnick and Khanna are 2 great examples of self-appointed talking-head experts that are destroying companies and laughing all the way to the bank from the ad revenues that their websites produce.
Most of those patents should have never been 'canceled' in Inter Partes Review . The Inter Partes Review is out of control, and only now is being changed to reduce the number of 'cancelations'. It's been a total disgrace and has cost the U.S. Economy $1 trillion http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/06/america-invents-trillion.html
'Recently, several conservative organizations— many of whom receive funding from industries with vested interests—have tried to preempt any form of patent reform by arguing how patent reform would violate their “property rights.” '
"Vested interests" lobbying against further destruction of patent rights?
Well, Mr. Khanna, perhaps you haven't noticed by nearly all lobbying in D.C. on economic issues is done by "vested interests". Are you aware of the defamatory lobbying and media campaign by Consumer Electronics Assoc. ? They are leading the lobbying effort and pretty much every large tech company is in CEA. Nearly the entire consumer electronics industry is lobbying to steal every invention from every small tech company. Already, over 90% of patent claims are being invalidated in Inter Partes Review, and you want even more invalidation. Many patents do you think are worth enforcing. here is some food for thought:
"In the early decisions (first 26), the win rate for cancellation of all claims was 85 percent for IPR and 100 percent for CBM. This has cooled down a bit. In 126 final decisions (as of Sept. 11, 2014), petitioners have succeeded in having the PTAB cancel all challenged claims in 65 percent of the cases."
Yes, the is in 85% of patent in IPR, ALL CLAIMS were invalidated.
H ave you read Judge Radar comments on IPR? You should know what the former chief judge of the CAFC says about IPR. He says that the PTAB IPR is the "death squad" of patents. And you want even MORE invalidation of patents ? My goodness, you are a disgraceful human being.
I have been reading the comments by Masnick and Khanna, and what I see in nearly every post by them is that their answers ignore a lot of law on patents and copyright. It's like trying to argue the Bible with Lucifer, every answer by them is an attempt to lead others away from the truth of the matter. These two gentlemen have no credible background in the field, Mr. Masnick is not much more than a journalist hack and Khanna has no background in any technical subject matter, not in school on his his work experience. Neither have anywhere near the credentials to practice patent law, and yet, these 2 self-appointed patent experts hold out their opinions based on not even half of patent jurisprudence as if they actually have anything to contribute. Mr. Khanna, I am a U.S. Supreme Court litigator, licensed patent attorney, major shareholder in a number small tech startups and active Republican, and while I have not run across you yet, I am sure we know some people in common. Thank you for outing yourself here as an enemy of private property rights so I can work towards marginalizing your influence. With Republicans like you, there is no need for liberals and anarchists. BTW - I think you absorbed a lot more liberalism at your schools than you will ever recognize. On this board, you are in perfect agreement with anarchist (and generally hateful guy) Mike Masnick.
The Free Market Case For Invention Theft by Copy-Cats from the let's-start-with-an-incorrect-understanding-of-patents dept:
1. Increase patent quality requirements - Mr. Masnick and Khanna - have you been an inventor and spent time pouring a rejection of your patent application and have you see how liberally patent Examiners reject patents? If so, and you didn't have greatly difficulty getting your patent approved, then you are a very lucky man. The standards are already quite high.
2. Make patent applications accessible and require them to actually teach - Mr. Masnick and Khanna , nearly all patents are published 18 months after filing, and some are published w/in a few months at the request of the applicant. Most patents already teach quite a bit, but the patents are written a rather precise grammar and syntax because infringers have in the past been able to convince judges that patents written like articles in technical journals are imprecise.
3. Reduce or eliminate business method and design patents. Mr. Masnick and Khanna - the Alice decision about one year ago has completely invalidated business method patents. You can read up on the effect that the Alice decision has had, but the decision is so encompassing that the Patent Office is even rejecting applications for drugs as being improper subject for a patent.
4. Create an independent invention defense. Mr Masnick and Khanna - are either of you familiar with the competition between Elisha Grey and Alexander Bell? They had indendent invention around the same time, are you really willing to say the the telephone was obvious in 1876 ? Nearly everyone thinks the telephone was genius, even though 2 people thought of it at around the same time. You are very far out of the mainstream.
5. Loser pays. Mr. Masnick and Khanna, we already have that, please see Supreme Court case Octane Fitness v. Icon Health from April 2014.
6. Speed up the patent approval and rejection process. Mr. Masnick and Khanna we already have this, it's called Priority Track I process. Costs an extra $1000, but well worth the price.
I can hear the CEOs of all the big companies now saying... "Shit, we can steal the best inventions of all the small tech startups and they can't do a thing to stop us and our employee wouldn't think of leaving us to start their own company now !"
I agree, the 2 painted bands are much different than grooves. Just goes to show you how incognitive some people are. And they send letters to their Congressman saying that patents are ruining their life. Oh brother. Alexa Jackson should get a job at the CDC.
Re:
National Venture Capital Association Announces Opposition to H.R. 9
Re: The National Venture Capital Association Announces Opposition to H.R. 9
"We believe H.R. 9 will create unintended consequences that will discourage investment in innovation and entrepreneurship by making it more difficult for any patent-reliant startup to defend their intellectual property. The net result would have a chilling effect on the innovation ecosystem, threatening the crown jewel of the broader U.S. economy and a key driver of American job creation.”
http://nvca.org/pressreleases/nvca-announces-opposition-to-h-r-9-following-committee-mar kup/
(untitled comment)
Mao and Stalin couldn't have said it better.
(untitled comment)
And I never said "if you try to improve on the laws we currently have". What a snarky dishonest way to twist my words. I have never once had the idea that you are trying to "improve on the laws we have". All I hear on this website is destruction of patents.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
But people on this website want to kill all patent lawsuits including the one's that my companies will file when we find out that Siemens, GE, Honeywell, Google, Microsoft and Apple have stolen out best ideas that the have spent $1mil in cash and $2.5 mil in time developing into products that are way better than anything else out there in the market.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shilling for fun and profit
How about limiting patent enforcement to current or former manufacturers of the invention in the patent ? I know that would kill the value of patents for us if Big Tech stole our inventions and drove us out of business and we wanted to sell our patents to Intellectual Ventures, but it's lot better than killing patents on a large-scale basis for everybody.
Re: Re: Re: Shilling for fun and profit
Big Tech does not want patents at all. Haven't you figured that out? Look at the CCIA and the CEA and their lobbying against patents. Have you ever noticed that none of their legislation has nothing to do with companies that don't manufacture the inventions in the patents, their laws affect ALL patent owners, and don't tell me that after $400 mil in lobbying by Big Tech in 2013 that was just an oversight.
Re: Shilling for fun and profit
By no small coincidence, at the same minute that I received email notice of your comment, I received a email from one of the shareholders and CTO of one of my small tech startup holdings about the new product he is developing that we fully expect Big Tech to copy at their will and just pay some attorneys to destroy our patents if we try to sue them.
Re: Re: Re: Obvious when you think about it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/google_amended_shills_list
Re: Re: Re: Obvious when you think about it.
Masnick and Khanna have only a cursory academic knowledge of the patent world, neither of them have developed a hardware or software product with their brains and hands, they have never drafted and prosecuted a patent for a small tech company that has put millions of dollars into the invention, they have never negotiated a license of a patent with a company that is stealing the invention from the inventor, they have never drafted a Markman claim chart, they have never participated in federal court oral arguments, BUT they have spent a lot of time absorbing nonsense from nitwits at Ivy schools. Masnick and Khanna think that the people who invent our great computer products have also just died and passed the torch of opinion to Masnick and Khanna.
I am shareholder of a number of small tech startups that have in aggregate invested over $10 million in new harware and software products, only to have nit-wits like Masnick and Khanna help run a campaign of half-truths against companies and inventors that have patents in order to stop the members of the Consumer Electronics Assoc from stealing all of our good ideas that we developed through a lot of blood, sweat and tears and cash.
2 of the small tech startups I am involved with will be hiring alot of people in the future, and i will make sure that none of our new-hires have attended the universities that Masnick and Khanna have attended.
Masnick and Khanna are 2 great examples of self-appointed talking-head experts that are destroying companies and laughing all the way to the bank from the ad revenues that their websites produce.
(untitled comment)
amazing twist of truth by Khanna
"Vested interests" lobbying against further destruction of patent rights?
Well, Mr. Khanna, perhaps you haven't noticed by nearly all lobbying in D.C. on economic issues is done by "vested interests". Are you aware of the defamatory lobbying and media campaign by Consumer Electronics Assoc. ? They are leading the lobbying effort and pretty much every large tech company is in CEA. Nearly the entire consumer electronics industry is lobbying to steal every invention from every small tech company. Already, over 90% of patent claims are being invalidated in Inter Partes Review, and you want even more invalidation. Many patents do you think are worth enforcing. here is some food for thought:
"In the early decisions (first 26), the win rate for cancellation of all claims was 85 percent for IPR and 100 percent for CBM. This has cooled down a bit. In 126 final decisions (as of Sept. 11, 2014), petitioners have succeeded in having the PTAB cancel all challenged claims in 65 percent of the cases."
Yes, the is in 85% of patent in IPR, ALL CLAIMS were invalidated.
http://www.law360.com/articles/581512/trends-from-2-years-of-aia-post-grant-proceedings
H ave you read Judge Radar comments on IPR? You should know what the former chief judge of the CAFC says about IPR. He says that the PTAB IPR is the "death squad" of patents. And you want even MORE invalidation of patents ? My goodness, you are a disgraceful human being.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Obvious when you think about it.
from the let's-start-with-an-incorrect-understanding-of-patents dept:
1. Increase patent quality requirements - Mr. Masnick and Khanna - have you been an inventor and spent time pouring a rejection of your patent application and have you see how liberally patent Examiners reject patents? If so, and you didn't have greatly difficulty getting your patent approved, then you are a very lucky man. The standards are already quite high.
2. Make patent applications accessible and require them to actually teach - Mr. Masnick and Khanna , nearly all patents are published 18 months after filing, and some are published w/in a few months at the request of the applicant. Most patents already teach quite a bit, but the patents are written a rather precise grammar and syntax because infringers have in the past been able to convince judges that patents written like articles in technical journals are imprecise.
3. Reduce or eliminate business method and design patents. Mr. Masnick and Khanna - the Alice decision about one year ago has completely invalidated business method patents. You can read up on the effect that the Alice decision has had, but the decision is so encompassing that the Patent Office is even rejecting applications for drugs as being improper subject for a patent.
4. Create an independent invention defense. Mr Masnick and Khanna - are either of you familiar with the competition between Elisha Grey and Alexander Bell? They had indendent invention around the same time, are you really willing to say the the telephone was obvious in 1876 ? Nearly everyone thinks the telephone was genius, even though 2 people thought of it at around the same time. You are very far out of the mainstream.
5. Loser pays. Mr. Masnick and Khanna, we already have that, please see Supreme Court case Octane Fitness v. Icon Health from April 2014.
6. Speed up the patent approval and rejection process. Mr. Masnick and Khanna we already have this, it's called Priority Track I process. Costs an extra $1000, but well worth the price.
Re:
Re: OMG NOOOOOOOO
Re: Re:
More comments from Mark Syman >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mark Syman.
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