When the first true economic analysis of the patent system was undertaken, by Fritz Machlup, he concluded that no economist would honestly support creating the patent system if there were none today, because it just doesn't make any economic sense.
And yet you still want us all to believe that you are not in fact anti-patent. You think the patent system makes no "economic sense," and yet you are not against it? Why not just admit that you are anti-patent? You clearly cannot articulate any way that you are pro-patent, so why all the squirming about taking a firm position against it? Seriously, Mike.
He wasn't referring to the Supreme Court ruling, rather Fox's application of it.
I apologize if my comment was unclear. Mike is arguing that the Ninth Circuit simply ignored Fox's argument on the merits about how Dish is infringing under the holding in Aereo. This is silly because it wasn't just Fox that argued Aereo helped; Dish argued that Aereo supported its arguments on the merits as well. The Ninth Circuit didn't mention the Aereo arguments from either side because it limited its review to the primary question on appeal, which was whether the district court used the correct standard for the irreparable harm analysis. So it's not just that the Ninth Circuit ignored Fox's arguments about Aereo, it ignored Dish's arguments about Aereo as well. And it ignored them all because the issue squarely on appeal was irreparable harm, not the merits.
No, I'm anti-bad patent system. And what will change my mind is evidence that the world is better off with this system as opposed to other systems.
Really? You're not anti-patent? Tell us this, then: Name one single patent right in one single inventor that you support. I don't think you can, and the reason is because you are in fact anti-patent. Saying you're just "anti-bad patent" is silly semantics. If you think all patents are bad, then that means you're anti-patent. Why won't you just admit it? Seriously, why?
As an examiner, I am personally curious to know what the patent system would look like if you, Mikey, got to write the laws. So go ahead, draft some laws to make the patent system be what you think it ought to be and post them up for all of us to read. Cover everything. I'm dying to read it.
And while you're at it, explain in detail all the ways it'll help.
Don't hold your breath, because Mike won't explain anything. We just get vague assertions about things in the "core" that are "not in need of improvement" and that are apparently not a part of "innovation in the actual market." Trying to nail him down on any of it is a fool's errand since Mike doesn't do substance. He does posts like this. Lots of posts like this. But precious little reasoning and substance.
Perhaps more importantly, the court totally and completely ignored Fox's ridiculous attempt to argue that the Aereo ruling supports its position. That was a crazy argument from the very beginning, and clearly attempted to stretch the whole "looks like a duck" test beyond the breaking point. As Dish had pointed out in its response, Aereo lost because it didn't have licenses. Dish has licenses, so it's not even close to being relevant. The court appears to have treated it with the amount of respect Fox's argument deserved: none.
Mike,
It's hard to imagine how your analysis could be any more sophomoric. Are you seriously arguing that the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument because they were giving it "the amount of respect" it deserved? Do you really think that's how these things work?
The actual reason the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument was because Fox was challenging the district court's standard for irreparable harm. Fox's likelihood of success on the merits of its Aereo argument wasn't the issue on appeal. So it's not like the appellate court ignored it because it just didn't think much of the argument. It ignored the argument because it was irrelevant to the actual issue before the court.
It's fun to watch the patent system defenders come out of the woodwork to try to (1) insult me and (2) figure out some way to defend the patent system around this. Keep it up guys!
Nice fluff, but where's the substance? Which wheel lacks innovation? Are you really arguing that wheels can't be improved? Why do you think these inventors are not "actually trying to build better tools for the market"?
Would it really have been that difficult to add context? Cutting corners on "facts" seems to me to reflect a deliberate attempt to create a hatchet piece instead of an honest piece of news reporting.
No, it wouldn't have been difficult at all. But Mike doesn't do his homework, and his point is indeed to create hatchet pieces. He's writing for the crowd who'll read this and think, "OMG! Da patent system is so stupid! They're patenting wheels! Wheels! Derp! Derp! Derp!" You're obviously not on the wavelength of Mike's target audience.
Some transparency would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Mike demands transparency from others, but he then runs from serious discussions about his own beliefs. I doubt very much he'll be upfront about who's giving him the money here. Transparency and accountability just aren't in the cards. That's, sadly, not what Mike does.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by techrebel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep it coming
And yet you still want us all to believe that you are not in fact anti-patent. You think the patent system makes no "economic sense," and yet you are not against it? Why not just admit that you are anti-patent? You clearly cannot articulate any way that you are pro-patent, so why all the squirming about taking a firm position against it? Seriously, Mike.
Re: Re:
I apologize if my comment was unclear. Mike is arguing that the Ninth Circuit simply ignored Fox's argument on the merits about how Dish is infringing under the holding in Aereo. This is silly because it wasn't just Fox that argued Aereo helped; Dish argued that Aereo supported its arguments on the merits as well. The Ninth Circuit didn't mention the Aereo arguments from either side because it limited its review to the primary question on appeal, which was whether the district court used the correct standard for the irreparable harm analysis. So it's not just that the Ninth Circuit ignored Fox's arguments about Aereo, it ignored Dish's arguments about Aereo as well. And it ignored them all because the issue squarely on appeal was irreparable harm, not the merits.
Re: Re: Re: Keep it coming
Really? You're not anti-patent? Tell us this, then: Name one single patent right in one single inventor that you support. I don't think you can, and the reason is because you are in fact anti-patent. Saying you're just "anti-bad patent" is silly semantics. If you think all patents are bad, then that means you're anti-patent. Why won't you just admit it? Seriously, why?
Re: Re: Keep it coming
And while you're at it, explain in detail all the ways it'll help.
Don't hold your breath, because Mike won't explain anything. We just get vague assertions about things in the "core" that are "not in need of improvement" and that are apparently not a part of "innovation in the actual market." Trying to nail him down on any of it is a fool's errand since Mike doesn't do substance. He does posts like this. Lots of posts like this. But precious little reasoning and substance.
(untitled comment)
Mike,
It's hard to imagine how your analysis could be any more sophomoric. Are you seriously arguing that the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument because they were giving it "the amount of respect" it deserved? Do you really think that's how these things work?
The actual reason the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument was because Fox was challenging the district court's standard for irreparable harm. Fox's likelihood of success on the merits of its Aereo argument wasn't the issue on appeal. So it's not like the appellate court ignored it because it just didn't think much of the argument. It ignored the argument because it was irrelevant to the actual issue before the court.
Care to offer a substantive response?
Re: Keep it coming
Nice fluff, but where's the substance? Which wheel lacks innovation? Are you really arguing that wheels can't be improved? Why do you think these inventors are not "actually trying to build better tools for the market"?
Re:
No, it wouldn't have been difficult at all. But Mike doesn't do his homework, and his point is indeed to create hatchet pieces. He's writing for the crowd who'll read this and think, "OMG! Da patent system is so stupid! They're patenting wheels! Wheels! Derp! Derp! Derp!" You're obviously not on the wavelength of Mike's target audience.
Re: Re:
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by techrebel.
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