Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap… And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
from the copying-is-a-part-of-innovation dept
Earlier this year, we had a short discussion, based on a review, over some of the concepts in the recently published book Copycats, by Oded Shenkar. I’ve finally had a chance to read the book, and wanted to post some quick thoughts on it. The book is definitely worth reading. It’s a really quick read actually, so it’s not even a huge time commitment. The basics concept of the book is clear: it notes how much economic advantage is gained through companies copying one another, while bemoaning the negative connotations associated with imitating and copying others. But, of course, if you look closely, you see elements of copying from companies all the time. Any time a competitor does something successful, you’re likely to see others copy it.
Where the book really shines, in my opinion, is in Chapter 4, where it details the massive successes and failures of copycatting in two key industries: airlines and discount retail. In that chapter, Shenkar looks at the success of Southwest Air, which “imitated” the failed People Express, but figured out how to do discount air travel while avoiding a few key elements that resulted in People Express’ failure. He then goes through a variety of other airlines and how they tried to mimic Southwest Air, covering many examples of both success and failure, and explaining why some succeeded where others failed. Most notable, perhaps, was the dismal failure of pretty much every single attempt by the big airlines to copy Southwest. They all appeared to copy the superficial aspects of it — the key things that everyone knew about — without quite grasping the underlying structural reasons why Southwest succeeded, thereby setting up a business model in conflict with itself. It’s yet another fantastic reminder that the idea that big companies can just come in and copy what some innovator does is quite frequently not really true.
The same chapter also looks closely at Wal-Mart, how it, too, copied certain key aspects from others, while also learning from the mistakes some other players made. The chapter notes that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target were all founded in the same year (1962), but were hardly the first in that space. Instead, all were copying a few other players who were there before — none of whom survived. It looks at how these three firms have changed over time, including how Wal-Mart copied many ideas from K-Mart, and then improved upon them, and how K-Mart then tried to copy Wal-Mart back, but failed (for the same reason that the big airlines had so much trouble copying Southwest — they got the superficial stuff, but didn’t realize how that clashed with certain infrastructure issues). And then it covers how Target has carved out its own highly successful niche, both by copying Wal-Mart, but also in tweeking the model in different ways as well, such as targeting higher-end shoppers.
Overall, the book is definitely a worthwhile read, though, at times it gets a little too caught up in the idea of “copying” vs. “innovating.” As the details of the book make clear, true innovating is really a combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things (tweeks) to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. It’s all really a part of the same spectrum. The problem is that we have such a negative association with the concept of “copying,” even though every company does it, and the end results are often really important and beneficial to society.
My other complaint — though I totally understand why Shenkar did it — is that he purposely stays away from the question of intellectual property, noting that his focus was only on copying that does not violate patent laws. I think it could be interesting to look at how patent laws have impacted such copycat activities. Some have argued that patent laws help force “copycats” to do more tweaking to “innovate around” patents. I think it could be a ripe area for research as to whether or not that’s actually true. My suspicion (not surprisingly) is that there’s little evidence to support such a claim, and that by limiting how companies can copy certain aspects, it’s actually limiting their ability to successfully tweak and improve upon important concepts.
Finally, the book does try to break out some “rules” for more successful copying, and that part of the book feels a bit weak. That is, the book is much stronger in the descriptive phase, rather than the prescriptive part, which comes off just vague enough that it’s probably great for generating some consulting revenue for Shenkar, but doesn’t yield much more in the way of general insights. But, that’s really a small issue overall, and that section of the book is still worth reading, if only to get you thinking creatively about some of the ideas in the book.
Filed Under: imitation, innovation
Comments on “Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap… And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying”
In the 90’s I was working with Yamaha and one day they called everybody from top to bottom(i.e. managers, executives, floor workers…) to where they have setup big screens and everybody listen to the CEO, one of the key aspects of that was that he was talking about how 7 eleven was doing inventory and management, he told everyone to look at how they could do better, and that was what people did at the time.
Successful copycats don’t just copy, they improve what they copy.
Copying is not that easy even when you have the original manufacturer or producer help you, I once saw an NTT operation where they send all those technicians to help a subcontractor who was having troubles, the technicians came back and reported the problem wasn’t with the workforce but with the management and to prove the point they transferred those people to NTT grounds and made the management of the firm look, the production came without problems and bad pieces where reduced, the problem was cultural, the managers were afraid of the executives and manager pushed hard or hide their failures and consequently things didn’t get fixed, NTT bore a hole at the ass of the higher executives for being too hard and creating an environment were people couldn’t function properly, well to make it short the firm didn’t change and it lost the contract, because they couldn’t provide a healthy environment.
In case anyone wonders all those other workers got contracted by another company since they were contracted by a firm hired by NTT, they were transferred and it was a nicer place.
On the other hand I saw a small company get bigger and bigger contracts because of its ability to think outside the box and come up with very interesting solutions to real problems that saved millions in production costs, now how did they do that? I bet is the law(culture) of the land inside the company, the management had this law that if you brought a drink to the workplace you should bring it to everyone that worked with you, the manager made everyone from the office go out in the morning and greet the workers, he even got to wash the car of his employees, in how many places you see that happen?
I worked with a lot of big companies and from my experience the ones that have a culture of caring for others are the ones more successful.
This is true for at least 3 thousand years since Hun Tsu showed the way. There is a chapter on the “The Art of War” where a mother is crying because Hun Tsu has sucked out the poison or bad blood out of her sons wound and she remembers what happened to her other son who died for him because of a similar act.
It also happens in every other human endeavor, I was just looking at some TV series like “black gold”, “deadliest catch” and “the colony” and there is a pattern that people don’t seem to see, but it is there, the people who wants to control everything are the least productive people and the people who let go of absolute control are the ones that get to the targets first.
The technical part is easy, the human part is hard it needs to comply with the underlying culture and companies forget about that and it cost them dearly.
The "Crystal Power Orb" can be yours too!
Just join the CwF+RtB program to learn how to stay fresh, cheese bag!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZpxMyoFpds
I remember a management class I had in college. The professor gave us a 10 question survery. And then split us into 2 groups. He asked us to come up a product we would like to sell. Based on that questionnaire, he had split us into two group “inventors” & “innovators.”
Guess what? The inventors came up with completely new products and the group of innovators innavoted other products. Mike, have you ever considered that you may be an innovator at heart? It is not a knock on you, because you make a faulty assumption that only innovation is valuable.
Just a thought…
Copy And Tweak
Copy and tweak is what us humans do. Every generation copies the culture of their society from their parents, then makes some tweaks to make it all fresh and new. We stand on the shoulders of the previous generation. Laws preventing copy and tweak (such as patent law) are extremely foolish.
Thanks for the share. It is important for businesses to understand implications of copying.
So the basic premise is that everybody copies everybody else and permutes things very slightly until one group comes up with the permutation that works. That group reaps all the rewards while the others go bankrupt. The actual differences between the permutations was tiny, so we quickly go back and make up reasons why the successful group succeeded and the other groups failed. We make sure to invent reasons that are deliberate so we feel good that the successful people were the ones that got all the rewards. After all, if it was just the law of large numbers, right place/right time, or blind luck then that would mean that the successful group doesn’t deserve 90% of the rewards for doing something 2% different from everyone else and taking the same amount of risk as everyone else. Since that doesn’t feel right and the market is infallible, the only possible conclusion is that their 2% must have been the stroke of genius that justifies our marginalizing everyone else.
Re: Re:
Do that again!
You made absolutely no sense there, but it sounded solid 🙂
Re: Re:
The book from Harry G. Frankfurt explains what you did there 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
Re: Just a thought
In this chunk of somewhat incoherent text was something that struck me that the people who shout that everyone deserves to get paid seem to miss.
[…]that would mean that the successful group doesn’t deserve 90% of the rewards for doing something 2% different from everyone else and taking the same amount of risk as everyone else.
They took a risk. That means that there’s x% chance of total failure and you get nothing. What it means is this. If there is a 50% risk that things will fail, half the people who try will most likely fail. Granted the exact % of failure is pretty much impossible to calculate but the basics is that if you take a chance on something you do not automaticaly deserve to be rewarded. You might wind up with nothing or less in the end. That’s why it’s called risk…
Re: Re: Just a thought
“people who shout that everyone deserves to get paid seem to miss.”
The quote from the arrogant corporate stooge sounds much like what I heard.
What you seem to miss is that if people use the invention then and only then the inventor deserves to be paid. If they do not want to pay then they should not use the invention.
Inventors face several types of risk.
1) That the invention has no market.
2) That a fraudulent invention promoter will fleece the inventor. See http://www.InventorEd.org/caution/
3) That one or more asset thieves will con the inventor.
4) That a large company will steal their invention.
5) That they will not be able to find a contingency litigator.
6) That the large company will forge evidence of prior art and not get caught. Examples of companies who have been caught are Microsoft in the Eolas case and RIM in the NTP case.
7) All litigation is a crap shoot and a hostile judge can torpedo and otherwise good case.
8) That a big corporate adversary will successfully lobby the USPTO to do their dirty by holding up a reexamination for many years.
9) And even when an inventor gets justice in the form of a court order the company who put them through living hell will pay people to tarnish the inventor’s good name.
The companies which do this stuff need to be held accountable.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
So, in a situation where someone invents something and someone else patents it, who do you support? The “inventor” or the patent holder?
Re: Re: Just a thought
Absolutely right that not every risk must be rewarded. But what happens is this: somebody buys a ticket and wins the lottery. We then write books and blog posts about how brilliant that person’s number-picking strategy was, how he or she came to the conclusion to pick those numbers, what everyone can learn from this person about picking, how the brilliant picking strategy made the winner worthy and deserving of the prize, and so on.
Likewise, we document all the reasons why the losers almost got it right, but not quite. Perhaps if they had the same insights as the winner, they would have been winners too.
Someone has to be original.
I have always been fascinated by differences in the way peoples thought processes work. Some copy, usually without giving attribution and that is all they can do. Not one original thought in their tiny brains.
Others are creative. They invent new things, products, business methods, etc. Then the copy cat hucksters come out in droves.
When they get caught copying they rationalize that they are just as creative as the person who produced the original ideas.
Well, they are not.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Someone has to be original.
I’ll bet you copied many things when you were learning to walk and talk … but go ahead, ride high on that horse. I do not care.
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Every child copies but as they develop some actually produce completely new ideas.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
“Every child copies”
– Duh – that was the point now wasn’t it.
Re: Someone has to be original.
Isn’t creativity the domain of the arts? Are you an artist? Did you know that copying is inherent in creativity? It’s true.
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Artists do not produce things which greatly advance society like the Laser, MRI, Pacemaker and so on. Incidently, I know each of those inventors.
We live in a capitalistic society and inventions cost money to produce and to teach via a patent or patents. Inventors cannot afford to invent for just goodwill.
Those who pirate inventions under the guise of being innovators are simply one more face of asset thieves. There is no shortage of hucksters and shysters in society as demonstrated on TechDIRT. People who are unethical and capable of rationalizing why they should be allowed to steal others property.
We live by rule of law. Our constitution lays out rights for inventors and patent law defines the specific terms. Inventors are promised the right to exclude in in so doing the right to profit from their inventions in exchange for teaching the invention. That is a quid pro quo deal. We have kept up our side of the deal and we dam well expect to have our right honored.
At this point the law only gives us one method of recourse, suing slimy thieves.
At the end of twenty years inventions disclosed become public domain. At that point everyone is entitled to do what they want with them.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
BRILLIANT way to treat your critics. Call them names and pretend you are superior to them. That’s the most pathetic attitude you can have, and it shows you know this is a fight you can’t win.
Unethical? Pirates? Thieves? Please. Most people here are none of those things, they just disagree with your ideas.
Inventors need to be paid? Great. They should work at a university or at an R&D company and get paid to do their jobs like everybody else.
Re: Re: Re:2 Someone has to be original.
“They should work at a university or at an R&D company and get paid to do their jobs like everybody else.”
Now this is really outside the box thinking:) If everyone does this then no new companies are likely to be born.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
@ We have kept up our side of the deal
I do not know who is this “we” you keep mentioning but if you mean patent trolls and companies suing competition for infringements on patents that should have never been granted, then I do not know what “deal” you are talking about.
I find applying the property/theft rhetoric to nonrival goods strange but this is what we should expect after years of mistaking property rights to scarce goods and resources with monopolies granted by law. Nonetheless, I could use the same rhetoric to pillaging the space of ideas by privatizing what should have never been given an owner in the first place. That, my dear Mr. Riley, should definitely be called “stealing”.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
RJR said, “Inventors cannot afford to invent for just goodwill.” Now there, RJR, is where you are wrong. People used to say the same thing about programming, but open source software has shown that doctrine to be a fallacy.
If an inventor is being paid a salary by a company, then he always has the option to invent or not invent. He knows that if he does invent, the company will own any patent and he will get no direct benefit. He chooses to invent for a variety of motivations:
* He has friends at the company and he wants the company to do well so that he and his friends get to keep their jobs. We humans are social creatures.
* He wants to prove that he is a superior employee, thus giving him a better chance at higher paid jobs. Putting achievements on the resume is a good thing.
* He is grateful to have a job, so he is giving back to the company. We humans love justice.
* He is annoyed at the old inefficient ways of doing things and he wants to make it better. We humans love to improve things.
* He wants to get a reputation as a really smart person, thereby improving his chances with the opposite sex and with other employers. We humans love to climb the social ladder. We love being popular with the opposite sex.
If our inventor is a lone inventor some of those motivations drop out, but not all. He gets a patent monopoly, but only if he goes to the trouble and expense of getting a patent then fighting patent infringement lawsuits. Most real inventors despise the patent system and never get patents. So for most inventors, the patent system is merely a threat, which actually discourages them from inventing.
The source of the threat is the offense of “patent infringement”. The perfectly simple fix is to repeal the part of the law which makes patent infringement illegal. Dispose of the concept. The former “patent infringement” becomes “patent use” and is encouraged. Then, at last, the patent system would do what it is supposed to do, “promote the progress”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Someone has to be original.
“Most real inventors despise the patent system and never get patents.”
It would be accurate to say that most inventions are never patented.
It would also be accurate to say that most inventors are not versed in patents.
It is, based on my experience, not accurate to say that most inventors despise the patent system. I omitted the word “real” because I do not know what you mean.
Re: Re: Re:2 Someone has to be original.
No, the patent system does not take anything because without it most people will not invest in producing or teaching the invention.
In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves. The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Someone has to be original.
“Most real inventors despise the patent system and never get patents.”
This is utter bunk. Lots of people want to think that they invent, especially programmers. This ranks right next to men’s preoccupation with their anatomy, IQ, etc., but if they do not get a patent then they actually have no evidence that they invented.
While my primary expertise was in hardware design (analog and digital), I was an early adopter of microprocessor technology. At that time there were mostly Cobal and Fortan programmers and both turned their noses up at programming micros. So I had to write my own code. Throughout my career I used scores of languages and hundreds of dialects. As the industry matured programmers started to specialize in embedded system programming.
I hired quite a few engineers and programmers and it was rare to see a software engineer which had the same reasoning capabilities as those who designed hardware. The reality is that most software developers are drones who write endless amounts of code with slight variations. At least half of them are pretty mediocre. They have their uses but they are not the brightest bulbs in the pack.
This is the same group who rationalizes that their contribution to society ranks in the same class as that of their peers who do actually invent new things. I assure you that they do not come close.
As to open source, it is NO different than any other art area. They can use whatever is in public domain but have no right to use that which is covered by in force patents.
I would add that just because they offer free code as a loss leader, to generate profit in other ways does not give them the right to steal others intellectual property.
I do recognize that open source is the kind of thing Mike Masnick likes to rant about, the FREE business model. But a free business model has to be based on giving away your own property and not on the equivalent of of a chop shop operation selling stolen car parts.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Someone has to be original.
Are you dumb or something?
“As to open source, it is NO different than any other art area. They can use whatever is in public domain but have no right to use that which is covered by in force patents.”
Yah right, I dare you write the code to do 3D graphics, robotic vision is all hardware right?
Stress measurements is done in hardware right?
All those critical system controls are all hardware?
You got owned dude, now you are trying to run away in the most coward way possible attacking others work, you don’t respect people who work, because you are self centered prick that wants to keep exploiting the system and conning people out of their money.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
I want to see you produce one recent patent that teaches anything they are all vague.
The only dishonest people are the likes of you, who don’t want to compete and want to get a stipend from the public instead of having to do honest to God work.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
“Artists do not produce things which greatly advance society like the Laser, MRI, Pacemaker and so on. Incidently, I know each of those inventors.”
Nor do they produce things that nearly destroy society like The machine gun, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, etc.
Re: Re: Re:2 Someone has to be original.
“Nor do they produce things that nearly destroy society like The machine gun, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, etc.”
Most advances have potential for destructive uses. And many are dangerous like the discussion of steam engines and high pressure steam (live steam). Another example would be early autoclaves which had spectacular and deadly failures.
That in no way diminishes their benefits. Weapons saved our collective tails in WW2. The neutron bomb is a considerable improvement over other nuclear weapons in that there is far less damage, especially radioactive contamination. While they may destroy an adversary they protect us.
In any event, my examples were about MRI, the pacemaker and the Laser, all of which have brought great benefits.
Are you willing to give up all the benefits because if you succeed in socializing inventions progress will slow greatly.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
I’m sorry… What?
“Those who pirate inventions under the guise of being innovators are simply one more face of asset thieves.”
There’s a huge issue with this sentence. First off, I’m sure that the car industry’s history disagrees. Look at Toyota’s history where they tinkered with cars until they found great success in the US to build a great brand. Look also into their hybrid technology where they came up with the formula for their hybrid cars individually and yet, had to pay the “original” inventor who was out of the market for 10 years, producing nothing and “patent sitting”
“We live by rule of law. Our constitution lays out rights for inventors and patent law defines the specific terms. Inventors are promised the right to exclude in in so doing the right to profit from their inventions in exchange for teaching the invention. That is a quid pro quo deal. We have kept up our side of the deal and we dam well expect to have our right honored.”
The process for patent approval is far from streamlined. From the looks, it’s first come and first served for ridiculous patents. Then the process of validity is so easy that we have court cases such as Bilski that shouldn’t even BE copyrighted.
So really, how is it being innovative if the law is supposed to help only the first one in the field and no one can build on that success without extraordinary fees?
Re: Someone has to be original.
@ Some copy, usually without giving attribution and that is all they can do
Everyone does it every day. It is called “culture”. Nobody works in vacuum.
@ Others are creative. They invent new things, products, business methods, etc
False distinction. New products and business methods are always based on knowledge accumulated earlier, not only about what works but about what doesn’t work.
Try harder next time, Mr. Riley, it takes more than feeling right to actually be right. You can start by coming up with a real argument instead of discussing straw men you yourself have set up. Add to the discussion, show that you really know what adding value is about.
Re: Someone has to be original.
Picasso, Shakespeare, Leonardo D’Vinci, Alessandro Volta, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Thomas Alva Edison and numerous others all copied something are you saying they were just copiers incapable of doing anything else?
How about you explain again how children learn, is there child inventors? What happens when you leave a child alone without the opportunity to copy anything from anywhere?
It is hardwired in the human brain the copy/associative process how do you go against that?
“Some have argued that patent laws help force “copycats” to do more tweaking to “innovate around” patents.”
They force inventors to invent multiple solutions to the same problem, IF they exist. If they don’t exist, then very few will have the money to license the patent and do research along that avenue.
To those here technically inclined, they force progress into breadth-first mode instead of best-first. That slows things down quite a bit.
Leapfroging
“They force inventors to invent multiple solutions to the same problem, IF they exist.”
Often better solutions come from efforts to invent around another invention. It is this process which rapidly advances technology.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Leapfroging
“It is this process which rapidly advances technology.”
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Leapfroging
Asking RJR to provide data to back up his ignorant claims is like asking RJR to post without his hilarious signature.
Re: Leapfroging
You are making a massive assertion there. The problem with the entire intellectual monopoly debate is that many arguments, such as that one, are made purely on faith, with not a shred of evidence to support them. Unfortunately, this results in sensible debate being drowned by noise, which is exactly what the supporters of the status quo want.
Right, as an obvious counter-example to your argument let’s take the case of a certain Mr James Watt. He made an improvement on the Newcomen steam engine, and then used patents to block everyone else from further improving on his work. No-one else managed to invent around his patent, and his contemporaries who independently made the same improvement were unable to enjoy its benefits. He set progress back for the duration of the patent, and some say he delayed the industrial revolution by decades.
Perhaps you could claim that’s an isolated case, but it’s quite clear that patents are routinely used with exactly the same results today. That sort of thing happens on a daily basis in the world of programming, where developers are prevented from using well-known mathematical techniques to solve problems where those techniques obviously provide the best solution.
While patents may or may not be enabling a few hundred lone inventors to invent, we have to wonder if they are stifling progress on a larger scale and all across the board.
Re: Re: Leapfroging
“You are making a massive assertion there.”
Massive link spamming, rather.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
How about you having the courage to sign your name to what you have to say?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
Why should I? Our culture values the ability of writing under a chosen name and it is quite easy to understand why. There is nothing “courageous” about self-promotion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
Clearly, using 60 words and 80% of a post’s content to identify yourself is your “courage” talking, and not your “massively over-sized ego”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfrogging
And clearly if you cannot find the material you have a massively deficient intellect.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
We’ll call your last post “Exhibit A” in the supporting evidence pile for your massively over-sized ego.
Thank you for proving my point so beautifully.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfrogging
I guess you created a self fulfilling prophecy. If you post an insult, something very common with TechDIRT lemmings, then you should not be surprised if you get an insulting reply. You should also not be surprised when the reply does such an effective job of summing up your situation.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfrogging
I’m sorry, but it appears you are the one being provocative and more often than not plain rude. If you have no arguments, no evidence to support your position and nothing whatsoever to contribute, then stop posting these obnoxious personal insults — you are just hurting the names of the people and organisations you flaunt in your signature.
If it’s reasoned debate you want, you are at the right place, but you need to be capable of it first.
From what I observe, here you are calling ‘stupid’ all the people who disagree with you, and ignoring any attempts at communication. Are you really surprised that people think you love trolling the internet as much as you like trolling with patents?
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfrogging
“If it’s reasoned debate you want, you are at the right place,”
I have yet to see any reasoned debate on this forum. I see many people babbling about patents who are at best woefully ignorant about the topic.
Intelligence is a very complex issue, so I cannot tell if the people on TechDIRT are stupid, just ignorant or are hired corporate stooges. What I do know is that many people on TechDIRT push large corporate propaganda as truth when it is not.
Any inventor who has suffered at the hands of those who take our inventions without compensation will take serious exception to the agenda which is promoted on TechDIRT.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfrogging
“What I do know is that many people on TechDIRT push large corporate propaganda as truth when it is not.”
ROFLOL. Seriously, you’ve got to be kidding me. How many times have big pharma constantly gave the argument that without patents they could never come up with new drugs (ie: big pharma CEO’s). Are you kidding me? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe what you’re saying?
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfrogging
I don’t know how you can take yourself seriously. “It’s the big corporations that hate patents and copyrights because IP is for the little guy.” Roflol. What a joke. If any of this were true then big media wouldn’t be so afraid of putting anything critical of IP on their outlets and IP supporters wouldn’t be so afraid to even debate IP critics. As it stands the *IAA are supportive of ACTA and they represent large commercial interests. Seriously, all the MSM media is owned by five entities (in 1983 it used to be 50) Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann (~Sony), and News Corp (Murdoch which owns Fox) and yet they seem to love IP. I hardly ever see them critical of IP. So, then, what’s your explanation? Why is it that the biggest media outlets completely support IP and are afraid to even introduce anything critical of it if IP were so anti big corporation?
Re: Re: Re:9 Leapfrogging
There are two major big business factions:
Coalition for Patent Piracy & Fairness
The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Deform & HARMonization
The first group is made up of banking, insurance and tech interests who want to eviscerate the patent system by eliminating most damages of patent infringement. This group is brash in their theft of inventors patent property rights. As a result they are being hosed in the courts.
The second group wants to retain their own patent value but to otherwise turn the patent system into a kings sport, freezing out all small entity inventors. This group is more risk adverse in large part because they have been burned big time for patent infringement in the past and management cannot stomach that kind of risk. But they are quite eager to return to their pirating ways if they can remove their risk.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfrogging
What and your self-serving rhetoric is different from what other people are saying how?
They showed to you that copying is part of the human nature, they showed to you that copying is part of the process of invention, they showed to you numerous times a lot of evidence and the only thing you have to say is that they are dumb?
What don’t you have anything useful to say, cant you counteract their arguments with well articulate responses?
They are not the ones failing, in the great theater that the internet is, they are giving others the raw materials to other to reach a conclusion and you give nothing except that “it is true because I said so” you are a pathetic little man, that according to some information is a scammer ripping other people.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfrogging
I have yet to see any reasoned debate on this forum.
So why are you still here spamming it?
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfrogging
If you post an insult, something very common with TechDIRT lemmings
Pot, kettle. You know the drill.
Besides, it’s hardly a “self-fulfilling prophecy” when I posit a massive ego on your part, and then you jump in to confirm it to everyone here.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfrogging
Well, considering the ego, it actually kinda is.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
What like the brain damage responses you give?
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
Please explain why Asiatic countries are growing faster than the U.S. and they don’t litigate as much, do you know what the penalty for infringement is in those countries? thousands of dollars not hundred of thousands of dollars and still they have strong growth why?
Explain why is that countries seem to fall back to IP only when they loose the race to the top.
Was and LG or Samsung executive that recently predicted that the electronic industry in the U.S. would be gone in the next 20 years, so is IP a desperate way to stay relevant in the market?
Without the right environment all your patents will mean nothing. Discoveries are made by necessity/accident, every day you can see that happening, and without producing anything the invention capacity in the U.S. will be greatly diminished, and of course there is the little problem of brain power, it seems that almost all higher education in the fields needed for high tech are dominated by foreigners students which of course begs the question, what happens when those people start using IP to stop U.S. interests abroad?
You see others beat the U.S. in production, it is not hard to see others using IP laws to hurt U.S. companies, and it will happen because they are working harder and developing faster than the American companies ever could.
Your type of inventor’s are parasites of that system, that sterilize the environment negating further advancements needed for survival, you creeps are killing this country(the U.S.).
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfrogging
“Please explain why Asiatic countries are growing faster than the U.S. “
Dirt cheap labor and no R&D costs because they steal ours.
“Your type of inventor’s are parasites of that system, that sterilize the environment negating further advancements needed for survival, you creeps are killing this country(the U.S.).”
In other words you want to use our inventions for nothing. The typical royalty for an important invention is 5% or less of factory wholesale. That means that it is 3% or less of retail. High volume products might see a royalty in the 0.1% range. I don’t think that it is killing anything and if it is too high a burden all you have to do is not use it.
What is killing the country is transnational companies shipping our collective manufacturing know how out of America. And shipping massive numbers of jobs out of America.
And if that is not bad enough they are killing budding companies by stealing their inventions and shipping them and the new jobs they would have created out of the country.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfrogging
“Dirt cheap labor and no R&D costs because they steal ours.”
Really, why not talk about cost of living and manufacturing capabilities, South Korea is stealing something? Japan?
And the best why is China knock off’s better than the original article in some cases?
“In other words you want to use our inventions for nothing. The typical royalty for an important invention is 5% or less of factory wholesale. That means that it is 3% or less of retail. High volume products might see a royalty in the 0.1% range. I don’t think that it is killing anything and if it is too high a burden all you have to do is not use it.”
No you prick I don’t need your invention, I can come up with my own solutions on my own, but some prick like you that had a half ass idea at some point that didn’t try to produce anything ever and patented a half ass solution so vague that will encompass everything I did is going to want we to pay him, ya sure you are the real parasite, and probably a con man, care to explain how you make your money? It is not from your patents is it now?
“What is killing the country is transnational companies shipping our collective manufacturing know how out of America. And shipping massive numbers of jobs out of America.”
Wanna know why that is happening?
Because of IP that let some pricks like yourself sit on vague patents and copyrights that they use to force others to comply so they don’t need workers in America they need works don’t matter where since they don’t have anybody back home that will manufacture anything because they can’t they can choose where to manufacture.
The new victim of this trend will be doctors, since monopolies are making medical treatment so costly that is cheaper to pay a 4 star hotel in another country with, air tickets, translators and other things than it is to use the U.S. medical infra-structure, will you blame that on people stilling medical knowledge too?
“And if that is not bad enough they are killing budding companies by stealing their inventions and shipping them and the new jobs they would have created out of the country.”
You know what is real bad? is that inventions are not happening in the U.S., useful inventions are happening elsewhere, most of what people want don’t even come from the U.S. anymore it come from other places.
Is just unbelievable how not even in areas where there is no patents the U.S. can compete, take zippers if you look at any one of them I bet you will see YKK inscribed.
YKK is a Japanese company so there is no “cheap labor” there and there is no patents also, now explain why those things happen you prick.
Explain why people are moving to Asia countries to find jobs and with the money they get which is a lot less they can live comfortably outside the U.S. but they would never be able to afford that kind of level inside the U.S., that is the legacy of IP law in the U.S., to drive inflation, that drives consumption to create virtual wealth.
I don’t think you even understand from where money comes from, because if you did, you would see it is worthless.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfrogging
“they steal ours.”
Do you have any evidence to support this claim.
They don’t steal our R&D, they conduct their own R&D. Conducting their own R&D is not the same as stealing ours. If anything it is us that steal their R&D.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfrogging
IIRC, China is currently at 3rd place in international patent filings after Japan and the US.
They are just a lot less litigious than the US, which shows they aren’t innovating to monopolise, but to compete. Of course, RJR wouldn’t understand a system like that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
You do realize, Mr. Riley, that you are posting on the very blog you claim is filled with massively deficient intellect, yes? Inclusive?
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
You do realize, Mr. Riley, that you are posting on the very blog you claim is filled with massively deficient intellect, yes? Inclusive?
Re: Re: Leapfrogging
“The problem with the entire intellectual monopoly debate is that many arguments, such as that one, are made purely on faith, with not a shred of evidence to support them.”
There is a great deal of evidence to support this. The problem seems to be that some people do not want to find it or they are so dull that they cannot find it.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Nothing specific, again.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Typical. I give you two examples to support my view, and all you have to support yours is “there is a great deal of evidence”.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
There is a great deal of evidence to support this.
[Citation Needed]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
> There is a great deal of evidence to support this.
Then link to it! If there is so much evidence, some of it must have leaked into the Internet.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
And yet…you have never once provided any. Of course, why should you? Your entire purpose is to spam your laughable websites, not actually participate in any discussion.
Re: Re: Leapfroging
William Rosen recently published a book, the particulars for which can be found at:
http://www.amazon.com/Most-Powerful-Idea-World-Invention/dp/1400067057
Now, this site and at least one other have criticized the book for numerous reasons that are economics based. In doing so the critics have in my view overlooked perhaps the most important reason associated with the delay in the progress of developing steam locomotion; namely, that a far greater impediment than any patent was the state of all the technological arts during the relevant timeframe that were necessary to design and manufacture commercially viable products. The metallurgical arts were not sufficiently developed. Manufacturing processes for achieving needed tolerances were not sufficiently developed. The products needed infrastructure that was not in place. Etc.
I long ago criticized the critics for what I viewed as a rather simplistic analysis. The historical discussion contained in Mr. Rosen’s book helps to place my criticism in some degree of context.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Early steam engines were incredibly dangerous to use because of the manufacturing issues. I am sure that seeing people ripped to shreds of cooked alive had something to do with teh rate of acceptance.
Thanks for the book reference but it is probably wasted in TechDIRT.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
Exactly, and the patents didn’t let people develop safer ways, that only happened after the patents expired why?
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Actually that’s not true (I can be a bit of a tech history nerd sometimes, so I know these things).
The proper manufacturing processes DID exist, however Watt’s design was flawed in several ways, most notably the irregular shape and large size of his boiler, the need to cool down the steam by spraying cold water inside the boiler, and the fact that he *refused* to use high-pressure steam in his engines.
His contemporaries, most notably Richard Trevitchick, had solved those problems by taking the piston out of the boiler and making the boiler solid and perfectly cylindrical, and by using high-pressure steam (and therefore atmospheric pressure to release the steam instead of cooling it down by pumping water in). In fact, they had managed to compact Watt’s stationary, room-sized engine to the size of a modern car engine.
These people were sued off the face of the earth, as they were forced to use a separate condenser, which was a necessary improvement over the Newcomen engine — this is what Watt had the patents on. Trevithick, who was a very stubborn chap, was finally able to release his 30-year-old mobile high-pressure steam engine designs *right after* Watt’s patents expired, and that’s when steam power and locomotives really caught on. IIRC, the first train run four years after Watt’s patents expired.
Unfortunately, due to the patent wars with Watt, Trevitchick died a poor man, while Watt was rolling in it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
It is always interesting how people twist history. Even if this was true the term of patents is short enough that it really does not matter in the big picture.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfroging
@ It is always interesting how people twist history
I encourage you to provide your own version and counter cc’s claims.
@ Even if this was true the term of patents is short enough that it really does not matter in the big picture.
15-20 years is enough for whole industries to rise or fall so what you say is simply not true. Conversely, if the term of patents do not matter “in the big picture”, no harm could be done by slashing them drastically, right? “In the big picture”, at least, whatever you mean by just another generalization lacking specifics.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfroging
Erm, what? I “twisted history”?
I recounted the facts the way I’m aware of them, from reading a number of widely accepted history books on the subject. That was in response to the AC, who says he knows something I wasn’t aware of.
I do not recall addressing you, or inviting you to snipe your shitty little comments at me.
Now stop acting like a child, and stop acting like a dick and STFU.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
cc, does this mean you are mad and that your are going to take your marbles and stomp off to a different sandbox?
You kind of remind me of an adolescent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
At least I have my marbles…
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
“At least I have my marbles…”
The two marbles you have are not a good substitute for a well functioning brain:)
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
And here we go again. You are calling me stupid because I disagree with you. Grow up.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
You said “At least I have my marbles…” which created a nice opening for my reply. Perhaps when you are trying to a smart ass you should consider what you have written before posting it.
One could argue that your creating an opportunity for the kind of reply you got was your own stupidity.
Maybe if you stop thinking with your gonads you can avoid similar situations in the future.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:9 Leapfroging
And again you are calling me stupid because I disagree with you.
Re: Re: Re:10 Leapfroging
Does the shoe fit?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:11 Leapfroging
It fits up your own arse.
Re: Re: Re:12 Leapfroging
In other words the shoe does fit:)
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
Whoops, I meant spraying cold water inside the *condenser*, not *boiler*.^^
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
One is not a “nerd” because of having an interest in the historical development of products that today we all take for granted.
Given your interest in history, you might want to read a paper published last year that relates to the development of steam engines during the late 1700s and early 1800s. It can be read at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zcWIDZ2wrWkJ:www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/douglas/seminar/strongsteam13.pdf+trevithick+watt+patent&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShxq6GhALrrQj2GZMMzqK5L0fBKEj2x7eBwgnEW8By0JrPHXdDXolvO-xTTBlcAmMiPH_iR6PF62-l578ulNQkij9flA3U3bUpUBkntWcQaVPpyT5LwR_GNtLo7USmHl2LlVQGM&sig=AHIEtbT_HQIT86SnMQtI0PZe8zV6DBvEDA
Importantly, I do not vouch for the authors having accurately portrayed the historical record. The most I can say is that their characterization of the impact of Watt’s patent on the development of high pressure steam engines generally tracks what I have read from many other sources, i.e., the impact was nil.
As you read it you may want to consider a couple (among many) of issues that are continually repeated here. First, might patents serve a beneficial purpose by encouraging “design arounds” that may lead to new products? Second, might other technological issues weigh more heavily in hindering the development of new products than the presence of a patent?
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfroging
This is a better link as it presents the entire paper in PDF format:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
I don’t see how that paper really proves anything. It alleges that Watts was afraid of pressures well above atmospheric pressure. Even if this is true, that doesn’t mean that everyone was. Some people may have been but some people are afraid of the dark too. Hardly means anything and hardly explains why the innovation in steam engines only occurred after the patent expired.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
You don’t know how right you are. Watt was convinced that high-pressure steam was impossible to use. That’s why his steam engines always had to be massive and weren’t even that powerful.
One useful example of Watt’s disinclination to use high-pressure steam was when one of his own employees, William Murdoch, independently built a high-pressure steam engine. Watt did everything within his power to prohibit him from further improving on his designs. Some historians actually argue that Watt might have patented some of Murdoch’s inventions in order to make it impossible for him to continue his research. Of course, that paper conveniently forgets this.
While high-pressure steam was more dangerous, it was also a lot more powerful and allowed engines to be made much smaller. Trevithick, Watt’s main rival, was not primarily interested in competing with Watt’s massive engines, which could only be used as pumps in mines and factories. He was interested in building steam-powered vehicles, and that is why he experimented with high-pressure steam. While he did not need Watt’s condenser (and never did use it, even after Watt’s patent expired), Trevithick was afraid of releasing his plans for a locomotive because of Watt’s patent on “expansive steam”, and released them right after that expired. Some say that patent may have been unenforceable, but we can only say that in hind-sight — the threat to Trevithick was very real.
I personally don’t buy the “Watt was an honourable businessman” portrayal in the paper. Watt was quite ferocious, and he asserted his patents on multiple occasions, while he sought ridiculous monopoly rents for licenses. In fact, he used his patents to block any semblance of competition (he destroyed the Hornblower family), and provably delayed uptake of his invention, as did Newcomen with his own patents almost 60 years before him: the installations of new steam engines as much as tripled the year their patents expired. Watt made most of his money from licensing and not from selling steam engines, but that changed when the patents expired — his sons, who were handed his business then, went on to trade successfully without the need for patents.
To put things into perspective, while Watt started out as the lone inventor, he made LOTS of money, so by the late 1700s he was today’s equivalent of a corporation.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
Re Watt being “afraid”, his concern was shared by the majority of persons dealing in the “steam engine” arts. One does not simply take an existing system and introduce a new variable, steam pressure, and immediately expect that it will work just fine. The devil is always in the details, and the details involve the ability of the various components to properly cooperate with each other and to stand up to the rigors of the environment created by the introduction of the new variable.
It is also important to keep in mind the end application for various devices. Watt and Boulton’s engines served the mining and manufacturing markets, and were not intended to serve as sources of power for future locomotion markets. To try and compare the two markets would be a mistake.
If I may, I suggest reading at least one portion of Mr. Rosen’s book that touches upon the concerns associated with the introduction of high pressure steam. Rosen presents some historical data suggesting that the concerns appear to have been well founded. It was not until other inventions were created that allowed high pressure steam engines to operate reliably with a much greater degree of safety.
It is important to understand that the article to which I linked, at least one author of which is an economist, did not direct itself to a study of purely economic data. It addresses the historical record and is used primarily to question the assumptions made by many economists who concluded that Watt’s patent stifled innovation, when it appears that their understanding of history and the relevant markets at that point in time is seriously flawed.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
“Re Watt being “afraid”, his concern was shared by the majority of persons dealing in the “steam engine” arts.”
Do you have evidence that the majority shared this view? Providing evidence that some had this view hardly constitutes evidence that the majority did.
“Boulton’s engines served the mining and manufacturing markets, and were not intended to serve as sources of power for future locomotion markets. To try and compare the two markets would be a mistake.”
Hardly diminishes the threat of a patent lawsuit. At the time the patent holder doesn’t know if an engine for the locomotion market can be adapted to an engine for the mining and manufacturing market.
“Rosen presents some historical data suggesting that the concerns appear to have been well founded. “
Some historical data suggesting that some people may have held the same concerns. Different than saying that they were well founded among a majority. and even if they were, all one needs is a minority to improve upon the engine, a minority that could have otherwise improved if they didn’t see the potential threat of a patent lawsuit.
“It was not until other inventions were created”
It was not until the patent expired that these other inventions were created. The point is that the threat of a patent lawsuit was what prevented these other inventions from being created because these other inventions could potentially trigger an infringement suit.
It’s not like people couldn’t test the safety of various engines in a lab under safe conditions. People ignite explosives under safe conditions (ie: keep a distance), people could have easily came up with various tests and enforced procedures to ensure safety during those tests until they were able to come up with a design that they know is safe. Proof, they eventually did, but they did it only after patents were invented.
The potential for the danger of producing something isn’t an issue if you properly control for the possible danger during development. People have safely developed dangerous bombs and the physics and theories that go behind making those bombs. The danger isn’t an issue as long as people adopt proper protocols, and I highly doubt the danger of a highly pressurized steam engine even compares with the danger of creating a bomb yet people design bombs.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
Now the potential for getting sued and the threat of getting sued for infringement is much harder to control for than the ability to control for various dangers of over-pressurizing an engine. The best way to control for that is to avoid the whole technology altogether and that’s apparently what many did which is what delayed the advancement of the steam engine. The threat of a patent lawsuit is a real threat that is hard to control for, the potential threat of danger is much easier to control for. Look at Mythbusters and all the tests they do and all the dangerous explosions that result. Much more dangerous than putting pressure in an engine. Yet they manage to stay safe with their experiments because they implement proper safety protocols. The argument that people simply stopped experimenting with ways to build a safer steam engine simply because of the potential dangers involved are unfounded at best. People stopped experimenting because they were afraid of a lawsuit if they succeeded and this delayed the advancement of the technology.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
“Now the potential for getting sued and the threat of getting sued for infringement is much harder to control for than the ability to control for various dangers of over-pressurizing an engine.”
Actually that is not the case. Published patents make it easy to control this risk.
The problem is that many decades of being able to infringe with total impunity led to a very nasty culture in corporate circles. They claim they do not read patents because they have every intention of stealing. It seems that that culture exists in in other industries such as open source.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
and even your own paper claims, “but plain as the evidence may seem” in other words it admits that the evidence does appear to show what patent critics are suggesting it shows and so the paper is trying to proclaim an unsubstantiated alternative view. Well, I can come up with an alternative view explaining how the moon doesn’t really exist and it’s really a figment of your imagination too. but the problem is that the most intuitive explanation for the evidence that we see is that the moon does in fact exist. Same thing here. The evidence shows that patents hindered the advancement of the steam engine. Sure, someone somewhere can come up with some completely unintuitive, convoluted and retarded hypothesis as to why that’s not true, and IP proponents are really good at twisting the truth and even coming up with ridiculous arguments, but the fact remains, the evidence strongly suggests that patents are largely responsible for hindering the progress of steam engines and so it’s reasonable to conclude so. The explanation presented in the paper is unreasonable and unintuitive. It’s just a possible alternate hypothesis but I can come up with a possible alternate hypothesis as to why the moon appears to exist but really doesn’t. Means nothing. The fact that someone somewhere can come up with an alternative hypothesis is meaningless because someone can always come up with a possible alternative hypothesis to anything. In order for you viewpoint to have merit it needs support, not just guesswork.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
The paper is not one of economic theory, as is the thrust of the articles cited at the beginning of the paper.
To their credit the authors eschew engaging in an economics debate. Instead, they attempt to examine merely the historical record of what was then transpiring in the steam engine industy and its then and future markets. In my view it is critically important to have such an historical predicate for anyone intent on then crafting an economic analysis of the type presented by various groups such as Messrs. Boldrin and Levine.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
Fair enough, I just think that the article does a poor job at refuting the obvious interpretation of the evidence that patents contributed to the delay of steam engine advancement. Sure, patents may not have been the only factor contributing to its delay, but they are a critical factor.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
Perhaps is does with respect to articles I have not had the opportunity to review, but I submit that it does an admirable job calling into question the many assumptions that underlie works by persons such as Levine and Boldrin. They did not examine any of the history associated with the technology underlying steam engines, but only in a very cursory way took some numerical data devoid of technical context and used it to suport their thesis.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
“They did not examine any of the history associated with the technology underlying steam engines”
Of course they did.
“but only in a very cursory way took some numerical data devoid of technical context and used it to suport their thesis.”
I disagree. The article in question does exactly that by making up an unsupported interpretation of the data that makes no sense. The alleged danger wasn’t an issue after the patent expired and it wasn’t an issue before the patent expired either.
There was also the danger that the world could end due to an earthquake and meteor shower, and there are some quack person that believed it and that belief may have prevented him/her from innovating in fear because they were hiding but that hardly means anything. To come up with some unintuitive interpretation of the evidence based on the fact that some people may have been afraid of something is hardly substantial.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfroging
What beneficial purpose?
They don’t show designs I want you to go find one recent patent that is clear and show how things are done, there is no such a thing it is the f’cking unicorn it doesn’t exist.
There is no designing around, if you patent the basics and that is what most companies are doing right now you can’t go around, that may have been true in the 60’s but is not anymore, patents got vague and the mess in the cellphone market shows how ridiculous it can get.
Others factors may have an impact but the only true thing that stop others from developing and studying is patents, thank God there are hackers out there studying anyways, with or without the law.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
“Others factors may have an impact but the only true thing that stop others from developing and studying is patents, thank God there are hackers out there studying anyways, with or without the law.”
No one stops people from studying patents. In fact the purpose of patents is to make the knowledge available for others to study and build on.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
Studying what, there is nothing in patents today that teach anything.
When you find a patent that teaches anything I will believe until then this is like Santa.
Who do you think you are fooling? yourself maybe?
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
I and many other inventors do study patents and learn from them. In fact, studying patents is a great way to expand one’s technical knowledge. It is also a good way to learn about unsolved problems and can catalyze discovery of new inventions.
Everything in life which is worthwhile requires work. Learning to understand patents requires your investing some time to understand them. If you chose to not do so then it is your own self inflicted loss.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
“I and many other inventors do study patents and learn from them.”
Problem is that you’re not an inventor. You’re a wanna be. You compare yourself to Google Engineer as if there is a comparison when what’s obvious to them and most techs and most people is non – obvious to you. What you consider non – obvious the rest of the world considers obvious.
No body opens up patent searches to learn anything. People open up books and journals and publications. People don’t look through patents for ideas that they’re not allowed to implement regardless.
“Learning to understand patents requires your investing some time to understand them.”
Disagreeing with you and not understanding something are not the same thing. If you truly understand patents why don’t you enlighten us. Give us evidence supporting your position.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
Seriously, has anyone here really seen anyone reading through patents in order to learn anything new? In order to study how technology works? Anything? I haven’t heard of any such thing and I even doubt that Riley does it. If so, that might help explain why he doesn’t really seem to know much beyond the obvious. No researchers or engineers that I have ever heard of looks through patents to learn stuff. They go to school, they read textbooks, they study various books and peer review publications, they conduct R&D. They don’t sit around reading patents to learn how engineering or anything works. Maybe to avoid infringement or to later prove to a court or a patent holder that they did not infringe or maybe to read what patents are out there so that they can try and get a patent on something not already patented but that’s about it.
Heck, until much more recently (with Google patent search and the Internet) finding patents to look through was difficult. It’s not like your local library carried a book of all the patents. They carried more useful information. Where would you have looked 30 years ago to find details on all the patents that exist so that you can learn about them? You would have to be a patent lawyer to know that and that information was mostly just used by patent lawyers. Before the Internet how many engineers had patent books in their collection of books that they read and studies in order to learn anything (and provide evidence)? Patents weren’t put here to teach anyone anything, they’re just put here to tell anyone what they can’t do. That’s not a form of transparency, that’s just a form of control. Telling other people what they can’t do requires being transparent about what they’re not allowed to do but that doesn’t do anyone any favors. A dictator is transparent about telling his citizens that they’re not allowed to criticize the government but that does no one any favors.
Re: Re: Re:9 Leapfroging
“Heck, until much more recently (with Google patent search and the Internet) finding patents to look through was difficult.”
Online patent databases existed long before Google.
Not only that, no inventor in their right mind uses Google to research their invention because what they search for would give Google a very good idea of what their invention might be. Google has been picking up where Microsoft left off with a real attitude that all inventions are theirs for the taking.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:10 Leapfroging
“Not only that, no inventor in their right mind uses Google to research their invention because what they search for would give Google a very good idea of what their invention might be.”
You’re honestly deluded.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
“Problem is that you’re not an inventor.”
Lets see if you can figure out how to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
“People don’t look through patents for ideas that they’re not allowed to implement regardless.”
They are not looking so much for what they cannot do as for what others missed that can be done. Inventions produced in this way are often very valuable.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
“When you find a patent that teaches anything I will believe”
Every patent teaches something. I feel bad for you that you cannot comprehend this because it means you are missing a great opportunity.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
“Every patent teaches something.”
There is a difference between teaching and telling someone what not to do.
Re: Re: Re:8 Leapfroging
Again, in exchange for teaching the inventor gets exclusive rights to the invention. The right to exclude or to charge for use is part of the deal.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
“No one stops people from studying patents.”
willful infringement laws give people disincentive to study patents because if you’ve seen a patent and then you infringe, even if the patent is so general and doesn’t directly contradict what you did or if you forgot about the patent because you can’t remember everything you see, the damages for willful infringement are greater than those of accidental infringement.
Re: Re: Re:6 Leapfroging
“willful infringement laws give people disincentive to study patents”
This is adolescent reasoning at its best.
This is only a problem if the information is used to infringe a patent. You will note that companies like Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Cisco, HP, Micron, Intel are often assessed double or treble damages for willfulness. That is why they created the story about mythological patent trolls as cover for their disreputable conduct.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
As you said before people only do inventing because the government give them a monopoly if there is no monopoly people don’t invent right?
Re: Re: Re:7 Leapfroging
False. You seem to forget about the patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures.
Though none of the aforementioned companies are paragons of virtue, you can’t forget others that are there.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Do not forget that, while the patent system was impeding the progress of steam engines, it was also impeding the progress of machine tools and metallurgy. The patent system is the taker which keeps on taking.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfroging
No, the patent system does not take anything because without it most people will not invest in producing or teaching the invention.
In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves. The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfroging
@ No, the patent system does not take anything because without it most people will not invest in producing or teaching the invention.
[citation needed] indeed.
@ In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves.
Income is income. Not being a “wage slave” is earned by delivering to the market something it values, not by keeping others from doing so by suing them.
@ The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
By bankrupting them because they happened to be unable to pay fees to license patents necessary for their own inventions or by being sued after they successfully market a product by a corporate patent troll with a patent granted for an obvious “invention”, waiting for others to become efficient and then ready to get exploited?
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
“waiting for others to become efficient and then ready to get exploited?”
If “others” build their business on a rotten foundation then they deserve to be run out of business.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfroging
“waiting for others to become efficient and then ready to get exploited?”
If “others” build their business on a rotten foundation then they deserve to be run out of business.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Leapfroging
It’s almost like saying Napster wasn’t punished by the RIAA for disruptive technology in the 90s…
Re: Re: Leapfroging
“some say he delayed the industrial revolution by decades.”
Does it matter what some say? I don’t think so.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Historians, respected experts on the subject of England’s first industrial revolution. I wouldn’t fall so low as to refer to baseless speculation like you do.
Re: Re: Re:2 Leapfrogging
It has been my experience that you can find many historical theories but they are still just theories. vested interests always spin things and as time passes it becomes more difficult to sort out.
Edison was demonized by those who tried to cheat him. Watts was demonized. The same was true of Farnsworth, who was harassed his whole life by RCA. Bob Kearns suffered in the same way at the hands of big auto companies. Jerry Lemelson, who was the second most prolific inventor after Edison was systematically cheated and demonized. I knew both Kearns and Lemelson and they were both honorable people.
So why should I believe the drivel about Watts?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfrogging
Or maybe those individuals weren’t demonised, and went down in history for exactly what they were and what they did. But that’s just an unlikely theory.
Re: Re: Re:4 Leapfrogging
“But that’s just an unlikely theory.”
Yep. There are far more aspiring copycats than inventors and those who want free reign scream bloody murder when their paddies are slapped. This is happening today and it is quite reasonable to think that it also happened in the past.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Leapfrogging
Edison was just as bad as projected
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
@Does it matter what some say? I don’t think so.
Yes, I agree it doesn’t matter what you say. Or at least, what you’ve said thus far, since it seems to be baseless.
There have been several times this weekend when I thought I’d chime in, but I kept waiting for some clarification to come up which might make you seem more reasonable.
As it is, that hasn’t happened, so I’m wondering why exactly you hold the viewpoints that you do? What is behind those statements that seem to clash with all evidence and even some evidence you bring up supposedly in support of yourself?
I mean heck, you take classic america vs russian commies viewpoint that if you don’t reward someone, they won’t invent . . . except that, y’know, even with a lot of academics constantly being executed, and with a lot of academics having fled to america, (from Germany as well), they managed to keep even with america in the technology race all thru the cold war.
And didn’t Mike only just bring up the other week, the economic studies which show that the more you reward someone for creative work, or any work that requires more than basic cognitive thinking, the worse they perform and less they produce? (After they don’t have to worry about money, that is; up until they have to worry where next months rent is coming from, more money = better).
So, RJR, give me an anchor with which I can try to understand your views. Why do you believe what you do about patents?
I think it could be interesting to look at how patent laws have impacted such copycat activities.
Betamax – Sony is a prime example of a copyright that killed a concept.
But take it further – imagine if magnetic tape had been copy written. Keeping in mind that it was developed primarily out of research in Germany during the 30’s and 40’s…
What impact would that have had on Broadcast TV, The Movie Industry, Radio, Recording Industry, and then eventually – computers. Honestly; I don’t think any of them would be to the level of progression that they are today.
Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
“Betamax – Sony is a prime example of a copyright that killed a concept.”
Copyright had nothing to do with it.
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Got a citation for that? As in, didn’t Betamax come first, and VHS won because it could record a whole movie on a single tape, whereas Betamax tapes were somewhat shorter than a typical movie?
Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
As I recall, Betamax was three hours, long enough for most movies but it was also a much higher quality image.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
I don’t think you remember anything Betamax quality was imperceptible but the hours it could hold and price was perceptible.
Sony always tried to corner the market and they failed most of the time and their biggest successes came from when they did open things up, like home recording.
Re: Re: Re:3 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
The Betamax had one big win for which all VCR manufacturers owe a debt of gratitude…Universal v. Sony
Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
VHS hardware and tapes were way cheaper, while there was barely any difference in picture quality (Beta was marketed as better picture quality). This led to higher uptake by consumers.
Also, early Betas only had a one-hour capacity, while VHS has two-hour capacity. I think this may have led the movie industry to give VHS its support.
Funnily enough, the Sony Betamax story may be repeating itself in the Sony PS3.
Re: Re: Re:2 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
I know that I was able to record most movies on TV and that means that the cartridge was capable of at least 1 1/2 hours.
Also, there is no reason that Beta could not have been scaled for longer recording times as was done with VHS.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Comprehension FAIL. Attitude FAIL. Life FAIL. Pure FAIL. FAIL.
Re: Re: Re:4 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
“Comprehension FAIL. Attitude FAIL. Life FAIL. Pure FAIL. FAIL.”
You really need to stay away from mirrors.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Nah, I was talking about you.
Re: Re: Re:6 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
“Nah, I was talking about you.”
Perhaps your comment was a Freudian slip driven by your deepest fears?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:7 Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Nah, I was talking about you.
There’s a false dichotomy making the rounds here that splits inventors and innovators into two separate groups when, in fact, they complement each other.
Imitation may be sincerest form of flattery but that only works when done well and by extending on what came before, Ronald J. Riley not withstanding.
There are such moments, as the invention of the transistor, that literally change everything. They are, in my mind, rare, though as what happens next is that innovation takes over where innovators see uses for the invention that the inventor never saw.
Inventors themselves can, quite often, be poor innovators. A classic example is that Thomas Edison stuck with tube style recordings long after the platter style had proven more popular because it was cheaper as well as more resilient in terms of storage. Remember that Edison was one hell of a marketer so that’s a notable failure.
We all copy from the day we’re born till the day we die. Wal-Mart stays successful by copying and tweaking itself though it will start to die the moment it stops doing that.
An invention is not an end in itself. If it’s truly a game changer such as the steam engine, the telegraph, telephone, radio and the semi-conductor it gives birth to strange and unexpected children such as the internal combustion engine, television, desktop computers and the Internet.
Invention is copied,combined, morphed and reborn in ways the inventor who was, after all, scratching an itch over a problem or challenge they had. That it’s taken by someone else and applied to a situation the inventor had no idea it could be applied to is the genius of our species.
I tend to agree with Mike in that patents tend to slow down or stop such tinkering. Or even things like research into diseases and conditions liked with DNA. Humans eventually find ways to work around these situations but we’d work around them faster if it were not for “inventors” who block access by charging ridiculously high licensing fees or insisting that a company they set up is the only solution as long as they have the patent monopoly to keep others out.
Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“charging ridiculously high licensing fees”
No one makes you or anyone else license. You do not have to use the invention if you don’t like the price.
“or insisting that a company they set up is the only solution as long as they have the patent monopoly to keep others out.”
If you want the invention to see the light of day you have to compensate the inventor. That is the way the system works.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
@ No one makes you or anyone else license. You do not have to use the invention if you don’t like the price.
It is the other way around. No one makes you or anyone else “invent”. If you cannot find profitable market for your product, there are people who will.
@ If you want the invention to see the light of day you have to compensate the inventor.
For profitable delivery, not for inventing per se. Unmarketable invention is quite useless.
Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“No one makes you or anyone else “invent”.
Most certainly no one give us the ability to invent but government encourages us to teach or inventions with the promise of potential financial gain.
Without that reward we would not publish, in fact we would do our best to keep our inventions secret. This is exactly what guilds did before the advent of patents.
Technological progress would occur at a much slower rate. Is that what you want because if it is you can stop buying any product which have patent protection. In that way you could completely avoid paying for patent and live a short and simple life.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
@ Technological progress would occur at a much slower rate.
This is only an assumption.
Mr. Riley, I will not waste my time on answering you anymore since there is nothing to learn from what you write and one risks being offended at the same time. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong but what is obvious is that you are unable to contribute something of value here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong but what is obvious is that you are unable to contribute something of value here.”
I contributed something of value, namely a great deal of information about the realities of inventing as a business.
The problem is not that I did not contribute value but that you and other TechDIRT users are unable to see or extract value.
In my case I did produce products buy an invention is in its own rights a product and deserves the same respect.
“one risks being offended” I believe that TechDIRT is by its nature offensive and that is the reason why you get responses you do not like.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
Don’t try to turn this on people, you didn’t show anything of value and keep insisting it did, it is not others that can’t extract something because there is nothing to extract except maybe the knowledge that you are full of hot air and nothing meaningful comes out of your posts just the same “here(showing nothing/hyperbole/BS or whatever you call it) why can’t you see?”
Re: Re: Re:3 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“I contributed something of value, namely a great deal of information about the realities of inventing as a business. “
That’s the problem with IP maximsits. They contribute nothing and then they claim that they have contributed something. See, patents are about as worthless as your contributions to this forum and yet you still insist that you have contributed something. Just like we have learned nothing from patents we learn nothing from you. The idea that we learn something from patents is a false illusion that only you believe, just like the idea that we learned anything from you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“That’s the problem with IP maximsits. They contribute nothing and then they claim that they have contributed something. See, patents are about as worthless as your contributions to this forum”
We contribute inventions and in the case of my Electrified Monorail control patents they drove $400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, half of which were in my home state over the life of the patents.
Or how about Dr Damadian who created the MRI industry?
That amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
What about Gorden Gould, inventor of the Laser?
That is what inventors do for society, drive the creation of jobs.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:5 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“We contribute inventions and in the case of my Electrified Monorail control patents they drove $400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, half of which were in my home state over the life of the patents.”
Of course, as always, you provide no evidence. I’ll just have to assume, as usual, that you are knowingly lying.
Re: Re: Re:6 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
He could also, without noticing, be committing a logical fallacy. He is saying that he had a patent (A), implying something used his patent (B), and that whatever used his patent “drove $400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, …” (C). His logic seems to be that these “$400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, …” happened solely because of his patent, or at least (and much weaker) that his patent helped. He is failing to consider the possibility that these “$400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, …” happened despite his patent. He is also failing to consider the possibility that the existence of this patent did not matter.
I believe the most probable scenario, if his assertion is true, is that the patent is such a minimal part of the whole (as Mike is fond of saying, execution is the most important part, and there is nothing of the patent on the execution) that whichever influence it had, whether positive or negative, was so minimal a part of the whole as to be lost in the rounding.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
@ I contributed something of value, namely a great deal of information about the realities of inventing as a business.
No, you did not. Opinions, assumptions and generalizations are not “information”. You had your chance for a quality discussion but you decided to waste it from the very beginning. Good bye, Mr. Riley.
That is the way the system works.
You have a strange definition of “works”.
Re: The System Works
It is not strange at all. The system confers a 20 year limited property right and if someone violates our rights the remedy is to seek compensation &/or an injunction in the courts.
During the 1920 through the end of the 1960s time frame companies were able to take inventor’s property with total impunity.
Since that time inventors have become much better at extracting retribution and large companies do not like that one bit.
While those companies are unable to produce significant inventions they are very creative with their public relations. Since 2005 companies whose business model is based on systematic serial infringement have spent more than $200 million dollars annually painting inventors as “trolls” and otherwise buying influence.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: The System Works
If any of this were true then those big companies would easily get the mainstream media to run many anti IP ads. Our govt is ran by big corporations. Big corporations and their lobbying arm, like the *MPAA, want more IP protections and they spend tons of money on campaign contributions and they support more protections. Big pharma largely supports patents and they had a huge hand in pushing for patent laws. If big corporations were so against patents, given the obvious influence they have over our govt, they would have eliminated it a long time ago. But they are not against it. They’re for it and that’s why these laws continue and that’s the only reason why these laws continue. Not because they’re in the public interest but only because they’re in the interests of big corporations.
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
Those patent laws came well before big pharma.
The reason other large business groups are pushing Patent Deform is that the patent system gives an individual who has a significant invention to take them on and win. Most of the time when you see media talking about a patent troll there is an inventors who achieved justice against overwhelming odds.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 The System Works
“Those patent laws came well before big pharma. “
Doesn’t negate the fact that big pharma wants patents.
“The reason other large business groups are pushing Patent Deform’
Again, it’s mostly big businesses that want patents and contribute lots of money to keep them in place.
“Most of the time when you see media talking about a patent troll there is an inventors who achieved justice against overwhelming odds.”
I have hardly ever seen big media criticizing patents.
Re: Re: The System Works
large companies do not like that one bit
No one is buying your “pro-IP underdog inventor vs. the big, bad anti-IP corporate bullies” story.
Large companies love patents. Sure, they spend a lot of money on infighting (see: Motorola/Nokia/Google/Apple et. al.) but they get a much bigger benefit in return: Keeping newcomers out of the market.
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
See my post on this thread regarding the two major factions of big companies. One group does love their own patents but wants to exclude small business interests and the other pretty much hates all patents.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 The System Works
I will save people some headaches read this and you will find all the answer you want about Mr. Riley.
http://ronaldjriley.blogspot.com/
The con artist.
Copying and IP
It has taken a while, but I see now what “tweaks” (aka “tweeks”) are needed in the ideas proposed.
First, 90 percent agreement; IP as it is presently practiced (and ESPECIALLY some of the “campaign money generating” ideas now before legislators) is very, very BAD. It could derail our economy, and greatly hasten our slide into second, third, or fourth place in the world ecomomy (we are already in last place in health care – well, first in cost of health care!).
So, ANY technology that is fairly obviously “tweakable” is impeded by IP. Any technology that is so new that it is not “on the table” for most industries will be:
1. Expensive to bring into the industry (and time consuming), and
2. Subject to being pirated when the innovator is heavily in debt, but ready to capitalize.
Without IP, that very important segment of the economy will be lost.
Even so, we are likely better off ditching IP as it exists, than letting the life blood be sucked out of our economy. However, that would require campaign finance reform, which isn’t even on the table.
Do you suppose there is intelligent life in the universe? There doesn’t seem to be much here.
Re: Copying and IP
“Do you suppose there is intelligent life in the universe? There doesn’t seem to be much here.”
I think it is probable there is other intelligence in the universe and that considering the vastness of time and space and as long as we have sub light speed travel that we are not likely to encounter such life.
On the issue of TechDIRT, either the average IQ is far below normal or the forum exists to serve commercial interests. Unfortunately, I cannot tell which is the case.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Copying and IP
“On the issue of TechDIRT, either the average IQ is far below normal”
Unfortunately, thanks to people like you.
“the forum exists to serve commercial interests.”
If this were true then why doesn’t the MSM, with a monopoly of about 5 media sources (thanks to govt and FCC regulation that blocks out competitors), promote the views that this forum promotes? Why is it that they completely censor anything critical of IP and media monopolies and they only discuss the pro IP position? After all, aren’t they gigantic commercial entities? Yet they seem to love IP. The biggest commercial interests, the same commercial interests that benefit from govt regulation in their favor and the same interests that received much of their initial funding through taxpayer dollars, seem to love IP and never seem to be critical of it. Yet I’m supposed to believe that they somehow oppose it? I think not.
There used to be 40 media outlets back when the FCC tried to pretend that their regulatory capture was in the public interest. But then their regulatory capture only ended up serving to substantially reduce media diversity, as it was initially intended to. and then you have the nerve to say that techdirt, which doesn’t get any govt favoritism, is here for commercial interests yet the big media outlets are not? Guess what. No one is buying your story.
Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
“Why is it that they completely censor anything critical of IP and media monopolies and they only discuss the pro IP position? After all, aren’t they gigantic commercial entities?”
Media widely promotes the myth of “patent trolls”.
Also, big media has promoted Patent Deform legislation, Time Warner is one example.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Copying and IP
If patent trolls are such a myth then how do you explain the data?
Re: Re: Re:3 Copying and IP
I believe you are conflating “trolls” and “NPEs”.
Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
“Why is it that they completely censor anything critical of IP and media monopolies and they only discuss the pro IP position? After all, aren’t they gigantic commercial entities?”
Media widely promotes the myth of “patent trolls”.
Also, big media has promoted Patent Deform legislation, Time Warner is one example.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 Copying and IP
“Also, big media has promoted Patent Deform legislation, Time Warner is one example.”
Where?
Re: Re: Re:2 Copying and IP
You see this is one area where people and big corporations agree upon it, we need change, now what corporations want is very different from what people want.
Now your attempt to paint people under an ugly banner so you can demonize them will fail because you need to convince others and by the looks of it you are not doing a very good job at it.
Animals copy each other all the time.
“One female began to take them to a pool and wash them. Then her close family began doing it, and now all the monkeys on the island wash their sweet potatoes”
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/weekthree.html
There are many studies with animals copying each other. Copying one another is a perfectly natural right and it happens in nature among animals all the time.
Re: Animals Copying
“Copying one another is a perfectly natural right and it happens in nature among animals all the time.”
The thing is that we are humans and we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing. This is a contract between inventors and society.
The problem is that we have antisocial unethical people who feel perfectly justified in stealing from inventors. And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as “trolls” even as they are losing in court.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Animals Copying
“The thing is that we are humans and we have laws and courts to enforce those laws.”
Doesn’t mean that the existence of those laws are justified.
“Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing.”
Who are you to say that all inventors invent for this reason? What, you speak for all inventors now? and benefits can exist without the govt.
“This is a contract between inventors and society.”
It’s not a contract I agreed to.
“The problem is that we have antisocial unethical people who feel perfectly justified in stealing from inventors.”
So the breaking of a contract that I didn’t even agree to is stealing? Wow.
“And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as “trolls” even as they are losing in court.”
So where are these massive propaganda campaigns? I never see them on Fox or CNN or any MSM outlets. Only on blogs that have hardly the same influence and power and money that the pro IP big media outlets have.
Re: Re: Animals Copying
@ Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing.
Historically and factually this is not even close to the truth.
@ And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as “trolls” even as they are losing in court.
Yeah, poor little inventors like Eolas or Microsoft. Or Oracle, which just happens to be suing based on patents they simply bought as part of their competitor, Sun. It is worth noting that Sun’s intention was not to enforce the same patents in this way.
Save your tales for yourself, I do not think anybody is buying the story of lone inventor vs. evil multinationals. Today’s US patent law is a tool for blocking competition and for grabbing whole bundles of elementary ideas just in case. It is a dog eat dog system, benefiting only the most aggressive ones, not the ones who actually try to offer better value to their respective markets. A tool for strategic warfare between big players, exchanging hits with legal versions of nuclear weaponry.
BTW, do you have any evidence of this “massive propaganda campaigns”? Could you identify their sources? Not that I have any hope left of reading anything specific from you. Just asking.
Re: Re: Animals Copying
The thing is that we are humans and we have laws and courts to enforce those laws.
Read: We have the people with guns on our side, therefore we are right.
antisocial
A difference of opinion does not make one antisocial.
unethical
Government back monopolies (e.g. patents) are unethical.
stealing
Copying is not stealing.
Re: Re: Animals Copying
“The thing is that we are humans and we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing. This is a contract between inventors and society.”
Tell that to Grigori Perelman.
We have laws in China too, we have laws in Iran and we have laws in Africa does it make every law correct? That is just ridiculous.
Inventors real inventors invent because they are drawn to it, weasel’s like yourself are in the area to exploit others.
exclude others
“by limiting how companies can copy certain aspects, it’s actually limiting their ability to successfully tweak and improve upon important concepts”
Actually, so others can copy is one purpose of the patent system. But, without the right to exclude others from use of a discovery for at least a limited time, no one wants to share for fear they themselves will get no benefit for the effort and risks they invest in creating their invention. That’s why Stradivarius took his secrets with him to the grave. There is a reason for property rights. It just makes sense. In fact, it was for that reason in part that the colonies broke from England.
Re: exclude others
Then why is Microsoft code still closed source? and why don’t we know the “secret” formula for Pepsi and Coca Cola? You know they still guard those secrets right? They’re trade secrets even, the govt may even protect their secrecy or punish those who release it. and why have trade secrets if patents are supposed to encourage people to be transparent. Also prove that Stradivarius would have released his works with patents.
Re: Re: exclude others
The Microsoft thicket is a real problem, actually the whole idea patent thing is a real problem… but, oddly enough, to add more WTF to the situation, you can’t patent a recipe. You might be able to patent the act of pouring the ingredients into a container though.
Re: exclude others
Let me make something very clear. Patents are merely a form of telling others what they can and can not do. In order to prevent someone from doing something that you don’t want him or her to do you must tell him or her what it is s/he can’t do. Telling someone that they can’t do X does no one any favors. It’s not a form of transparency, it’s nothing less than a form of control. I would much rather you not tell me what not to do than to tell me what I can’t do under the pretext that by telling me what I can’t do you’re somehow doing me a favor because the act of you telling me what not to do is somehow educating me about what can otherwise be done. No thank you.
Re: exclude others
Many inventions from ancient times were completely lost when civilizations perished because they were kept secret. Without protection people have very good reason to carefully guard the secret of their inventions.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: exclude others
Exactly the only ones that were preserved were the ones that were open to public knowledge which patents don’t help preserve hackers today do that, reverse engineering and improving upon discoveries without the consent or permission from others and that is how it really works, the better any government gets at enforcing any ridiculous monopoly the faster they get behind other competitors in the global market, I mean just look at the U.S. 🙂
Re: Re: exclude others
“Without protection people have very good reason to carefully guard the secret of their inventions.’
This is nonsense. Even with patents many companies still keep things secret. Patents have no R&D value since companies get patents before they conduct any R&D. Most patents are obvious and contribute nothing. It’s not like someone is special and can come up with an idea that no one else can. Especially someone like you when compared to engineers.
Besides, keeping something a secret, if it would stay a secret, is better than patenting it because keeping it a secret ensures the monopoly rents continue. If no one finds out the secret then the monopolist can still collect monopoly rents without any patents. The only reason someone would patent it is if s/he knows that someone else would otherwise implement the same or a similar idea (hence patents weren’t needed for others to implement the idea) and hence they just want to keep other people out of the market. Why patent something if you can simply keep it a secret and still collect monopoly rents from its secrecy?
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
Your reasoning is incredibly flawed. You say “Patents have no R&D value since companies get patents before they conduct any R&D.”, which is not true because R&D is done first and that drives getting a patent.
“It’s not like someone is special and can come up with an idea that no one else can. Especially someone like you when compared to engineers.” Inventors are special, they produce the breakthroughs.
I spent much of my career working as an engineer and what made me good at it was that I have a multidisciplinary background.
“Why patent something if you can simply keep it a secret and still collect monopoly rents from its secrecy?”
The reason to patent is twofold:
1)If someone else is able to reverse engineer and files a patent and I was using trade secret then I would be subject to paying royalties. It is good public policy to give preferential treatment to those who teach their invention. So those who use trade secret may have a long term to use their invention but if someone figures out what the invention is, and once they see it implemented that is a likely outcome, the trade secret holder is in deep crap.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 exclude others
“which is not true because R&D is done first and that drives getting a patent. “
Pharmaceutical corporations ask for patent extensions under the pretext that some of the time that the patent was in existence was spent conducting R&D.
Conducting R&D before getting a patent runs the risk of having someone else patent something before you do and if that happens you wasted your money on R&D since now you have to pay royalties. Companies get patents first and then maybe they conduct R&D after. That’s why patents are mostly obvious and have no R&D value whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:3 exclude others
and to the extent that R&D is conducted without getting a patent first most of the time the R&D was taxpayer funded anyways and the patent is mostly just an afterthought regardless. Look at Benjamin Franklin and electricity who was later asked if he wanted a patent and refused. Same thing with Graphene. Patents were an after thought, the discoveries would have been made regardless. The only reason companies get patents is to keep out competitors, not to teach anyone anything and not because it helps anyone conduct any R&D. If you want to claim otherwise please provide evidence because so far the evidence strongly disagrees with you and you haven’t provided one iota of evidence to support your position.
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
R&D starts before filing a patent and continues after. Significant delays to market come from FDA approval process.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: Re:2 exclude others
And lawyer litigation
The great thing about patents is that they only apply in one country they don’t apply to others and every other country deal with them differently, which means the U.S. can become a wasteland and people wouldn’t care around the world.
So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
where it details the massive successes and failures of copycatting in two key industries: airlines and discount retail. In that chapter, Shenkar looks at the success of Southwest Air, which “imitated” the failed People Express, but figured out how to do discount air travel while avoiding a few key elements that resulted in People Express’ failure.
WoW, Mike it must be the weekend LOL..
So now your definition of copying is doing something SIMILAR but DIFFERENT, so Southwest “did something similar but different” than People Express. So that is one company “copying” another!!!!..
What because they both offer air travel ?
What’s the innovation ?? “Hay if you offer cheap air fares then we’ll get more customers”. Gee I can see how lots of companies would not be able to work that out. Mike. Once again this is a joke right, you’re not serious ?
So if I try to sell a product or service for money, I would clearly be copying off someone else, because after all what else could I be doing ?
According your you selling your soul for profit, you state you if I pay you enough money you will review my business plan, I think you will allocate an entire 4 hours to it !!! WoW.
So I take it then that you have looked at alot of business plans have you Mike ? so you know all about the market analysis aspects, market research, definition of competition both in your market and general competition for consumers money?
So you know all about those things Mike, and you can they come here and put peoples business models and plans into a basic catagory of copying someone else, clearly the company that ‘copied’ the failed company did not copy it at all, it took some aspecs of its model, and buits its own successful model upon mabey aspects of the failed model and new aspects of their own design.
Clearly they did some things, probably MANY things different that the company that failed, so how can you say what you claim, knowing what a business plan, and model is and how one is developed and written.
Having read so many business plans how many have you seen that state “well do just what that failed company did but different”..
So which is it, you either dont know anything about developing a business plan, or you dont know anything about how business develop their market, their model, and their company.
So which is it, or is it both, you dont have a clue, but expect people to listen to you !!..
I note also you do not give any examples of companies that copy others that from that copying becoming market leaders in that field.
Can you think of any ?
Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
“I note also you do not give any examples of companies that copy others that from that copying becoming market leaders in that field.
Can you think of any ?”
Microsoft – Apple – HP – Cisco – Micron – IBM – Intel
There is really quite a long list.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
Microsoft – Apple – HP – Cisco – Micron – IBM – Intel
Thomas Edison, James Watt, Henry Ford…
In fact, let’s turn this around. Darryl: please name even one company, that did not become a market leader in their field through copying.
lets do an experiment
let the usa make forever copyrights while hte rest of mankind doesn’t lets see how it works for the usa
being creative doesn't mean original either
you can take an old work remix it cut the image up and remake a new image or work. With code thats what programmers do we look for mathmatical ways to bring htoughts to reality and sometimes you see something that works you can if its free code use such….
ya know i wonder if the reson aliens haven’t contacted us is copyrights ( besides the wars and violence)
a civilized society that can’t get over the gene roddenberry replicator transporter ideal will not get too advanced will it.
Which Alias Is Mike Using?
???
@this patent guy then @151
“i too can start my sentence with a quote”
Then continue to speak….
@151 and i totally agree i’ve never heard of anyone start out going, oh gee i feel creative or inventive better check the patent database and like make sure i’m not “infringing”
invention comes from a need one sees to change/improve somehting around you and creativity well it just happens.
Both have that thing called an inspiration and there is no set way to say all people inventing get inspiration this way…it just doesn’t work that way.
I could look at a cork and get an idea for a game demon image…it just is like that.
I’ll Then invent code in same way i either do just get inventive or not.
I will say when it comes to code however if i get a thought that it might cause me legal trouble no matter how cool or how neat the app/game would be i don’t bother, and thus society and the world miss out. THIS is the problem why the USA is staking so heavily on IP cause the future is no one does manual labout thanks to japanese robots, service industry all automated etc, all thats left is IP. SO free it like gene roddenberry envisioned or there will be problems later on. THEN you get a who can make things the cheapest and you get a who can do the most for its own sake, and all this money will get spend in and on other industries instead of taxing us all to death with it.
It's "Tweak"
Sorry if this has been pointed out, but I didn’t have the patience to slog through 100 comments promoting this Riley fellow.
Anyway – the proper spelling is “tweak.” Meaning “to improve in small measures.”
“Tweek” is slang, and means “to be high on crystal meth.” I’m fairly sure that’s not what you meant, though it might be more entertaining if it is.
I think Riley is a pretty cool guy. eh trolls TD’s comments with straw men and doesn’t afraid of anything.
196 comments. Successful troll is successful. Cool story, bro.
@this patent guy then @151
“@151 and i totally agree i’ve never heard of anyone start out going, oh gee i feel creative or inventive better check the patent database and like make sure i’m not “infringing”
Doing a clearence search to ensure that you are not infringing is not what I was talking about in this case.
1) It can be worthwhile to read patents to get inspiration. You look at different approaches to solving a problem and in many cases an inventor will see a better way to solve one or more problems.
2) You simply have a flash of genius and to flesh the idea out you review patents. In the process the inventor gets a pretty good idea of what has already been done and even more important reading about what has been done often allows the inventor to see how their idea can be expanded.
The patent database is a treasure trove of knowledge in its own right. Studying others patents is much better than reading a book written by an academic who usually does not have any real insight. Patents contain the thoughts of the best and brightest in a field and to ignore them is a terrible waste.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
Exactly! See, one copies, because reinventing the wheel would leave us with nothing but wheels. So, just consider this, “Microsoft – Apple – HP – Cisco – Micron – IBM – Intel” all copied others, and they make up a significant portion of the Global Economy. In fact, you could say, they prove that copying is the key to success… actually that’s exactly what you did say…just now…
If every tech startup took the time to search the USPTO’s database of potentially infringed algorithmic patents, then they seek to pay the patent holder before they do anything… Well, that means that only those with lot’s of capitol to burn would ever start a business. Truly innovative startups don’t really get capitol like that, Because their business is unproven. Given the current burdens imposed upon todays US based entrepreneur, I find it hard to expect any business to go out and hire a patent attorney to search for the hundred or so “inventors” that demand a pound of flesh from every dupe who believes he invented burping.
By the way, how much did the patent licenses cost you for your sites? I see several well known patents that you make use of. Just out of curiosity, are you paying IBM’s quarterly or annual rate? You should share your story of happily paying the fees that those mega corps charge, and how it makes you feel like a real American?
Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
And there you are, again, with the sophomoric responses. Why can’t you just leave them be? If they are so obviously your intellectual inferiors, then they aren’t worth the effort of a reply, right?
Which Alias Is Mike Using?
Oh my sweet Goddess, he didn’t use that obnoxious tag of his! Look! Look! He’s being obnoxious without it!
@this patent guy then @151
He’s talking about software patents. Like the ones you read about here. Granted by some examiner who’s “skilled in the art” because he has a background using Excel macros.
He’s absolutely right BTW, there is no way these entitlements can be sustained. More people are starting to realize what a mistake we’ve made in creating a system where imagination alone is worth ridiculous mountains of cash. The big things that were pushing for in reform now is a safe harbor, much shorter duration, reduced liability and grace in the event that theres no other option but to infringe while the patent is working its way out of the court system.
Leapfrogging
As are you:)
Leapfrogging
Mr. Riley, we all know that this is not how debate works. To have a meaningful discourse that others will accept, you must present your evidence. You never present any, and that is why we do not take you seriously. If you have supporting evidence, trot it out, but do not tell us to ‘find it yourself.’ You do not have the time to look it up and link it, but you want for us to waste our time finding your evidence for you?
@this patent guy then @151
Yep it is a treasure trove for a con man like yourself, that preys on people’s weaknesses.
Have you got many donations lately?
That is how you make money isn’t? Misleading people into a blackhole funding.
@this patent guy then @151
“More people are starting to realize what a mistake we’ve made in creating a system where imagination alone is worth ridiculous mountains of cash.”
A patent is not about just an idea. patents must disclose specific solutions to be granted.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
@this patent guy then @151
The thing is you can’t show any recent patent that teaches anything or show how to build anything can you?
Just like you can’t prove you patented anything worth and that you are not a con man preying on other people.
How are the donations scheme of yours going?
Re:
He actually is not a troll, he is a genuine American con man.
He needs this, or his donations are going nowhere and he stop getting funded by gullible people who fall prey to his moronic rhetoric.
Re:
Mr. Riley is not concerned with the truth because he is a bullshitter, that is selling something else “false hope” to others, that is how he makes his money actually, he doesn’t hold a job, he doesn’t collect royalties from anywhere in fact some say he was living in a trailer before he started this con thing of his.
Just Google his name and you will see the wonderful treasure trove of information other people collected on him.
Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
I’ve noted Riley’s words for quite some time. But his reasoning is incredibly biased in how patent protection supposedly works in an ideal situation.
Thing is, patent lawyers are paid by the hour. So obfuscating the entire process of innovation for profit is in his best interest.
Is there anything wrong with copying? There are things we already copy such as language or writing. Should we have it that all people pay $7 directly to learn these skills? More than likely, such a proposal may make the US richer, but it’ll impede the progress of learning for all. This is basically the position of Riley.
The main problem with copying someone is that you are not them. The saying is really true that you have to ‘walk a mile in my shoes’. Wal-Mart was born from poor people needing a retailer. K-Mart failed to copy them simply because the CEO had never been poor and had no idea how to sell to them.
Sam always had something new in his first store every week. He would have a new toy for the kids, a new tool for the men and some new cloth or something nice for the ladies. He was a true entrepreneur. He knew his market and served it. He got people to spend money. Not a lot but enough to make him a rich man. So know your customers.
The main problem with many companies is they forget they are serving the public and when you stop serving the public they go somewhere else.
Leapfrogging
“You do not have the time to look it up and link it”
But he has the time to spend countless hours on techdirt debating the issue. I know, it’s amazing.
Don’t expect any actual evidence from Riley. IP maximsits aren’t into providing evidence, they’re mostly into providing campaign contributions and lobbying. It’s more effective.
Someone has to be original.
“The greatest artist is not as creative as the stupidest inventor.” – Ronald J. Riley
Leapfroging
Up your ass? What are you, stupid?
Just a thought
And if you’re focused on 2-9, you’re probably doing it wrong.
Leapfrogging
HOLY CRAP HE POSTED WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE!!! I can’t believe it’s finally happened!
Leapfroging
Seriously, has anyone here really seen anyone reading through patents in order to learn anything new? In order to study how technology works? Anything?
The incentive is to not look at any patents at all, because if you read a patent and are later found to infringe it, you risk treble (triple) damages due to “willful infringement”.
Re:
Good business is always built on delivering fair value and good service. Kmart used to deliver fair value, at least on some things but fell down on service. Sears fails on both counts.
In business to business deals good relationships are built on equitable mutual profit.
A huge problem today with large companies is that most fail on one or both counts.
That creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to step in and take business from large entities.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
Dear RJR,
I’m not sure it’s sunk in yet but you’re a complete moron, know that?
The “invention” that I’m talking about one that deals with a mutation in the human genetic sequence, specifically BRCA1 and BRCA2. When they mutate a certain way they send the chances of breast cancer into orbit.
The patent is held by a company called Myriad. Well, actually, a series of patents over the genes which pretty much gives them control of that sequence.
The fees they charge are such that to get a test for the mutation costs upwards of $4,000 US. At this point we’re not even discussing treatment.
Myriad has also blocked research into that problem.
“No one makes you or anyone else license. You do not have to use the invention if you don’t like the price.”
People who have this mutation don’t get that choice, do they? So much for that argument.
Now then, as to patent law, one thing is that natural processes such as mutation aren’t supposed to be patentable but still the patents were awarded.
The whole thing is in front of the courts now. With some luck, they’ll be overturned.
BTW, do you know that nearly 20% of the human gene sequence as one or another patent claim?
Incidentally, doesn’t it come to mind that lowering the price of these tests would mean something simple like selling more of them and actually recouping any costs faster?
Nahh, of course not. One must compensate the “inventor”.
Then you fall back on compensation. Well, to some degree true, but in most cases as this thread has repeatedly pointed out to you in most cases an invention is the result of someone scratching an itch to find a better, more effective way of doing something not sitting in their mother’s basement, laptop in hand, trying to come up with yet another get-rich-quick scam.
Now, onto a patent fail because the inventor got too greedy.
There’s screw head sold in Canada but not the United States known as the Robertson. It’s deceptively simple, looks like a square head but it’s not quite that simple. The trick isn’t in the shape but the slight slight angle towards the bottom of the hole that allows the head to remain on a screwdriver in almost any condition.
Unlike slots, phillips, torx or any number of other screw heads these are almost impossible to strip as the driver and head are designed to let go just as the over torque point is reached.
Might explain why anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge here replaces screws that come in kits with robertsons and pulls out the damnable phillips head and replaces them as quickly as possible on any assembled product.
Mr Robertson, the inventor, licensed it in Canada at a reasonable rate while he wanted a ridiculous amount to do the same in the United States. Guess what? He lost that market and the money that went along with it because he got greedy.
As has been repeated, ad nauseum, to you, isn’t only the compensation of a limited monopoly (and I do mean limited) but that it’s available for others to study and improve on. Patents aren’t trade secrets, you know.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve had an original, to you, thought in decades.
Someone has to be original.
Do not make up quotes and associate them with my name.
I do not believe that artists as not as creative as inventors. What I do think is that they do not produce things which bring tangible value to large numbers of people. I cannot imagine any piece of art which would extend life as MRI (Dr Damadian), pacemaker (Wilson Greatbatch), children leukemia treatment (Gertrude Elion), etc.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re:
See, when you’re not talking about patents, you actually make sense. You should do that more often (both talk about things other than patents, and make sense). Although you could still do with less of the anti-big, pro-small bias. There are many big companies with good prices and good service, and there are many small businesses that are bad at one or both of those things.
Someone has to be original.
“We live in a capitalistic society and inventions cost money to produce and to teach via a patent or patents. “
So where is this steam engine patent? Can someone find the exact patent and what it said as written to and approved by the USPTO? If the govt hasn’t even been keeping a historical record of these things in a way that makes them easy to find then how can anyone learn from them? and how are future generations supposed to remember our inventions from them if the govt hasn’t been keeping a readily accessible version of them?
Someone has to be original.
“The process for patent approval is far from streamlined. From the looks, it’s first come and first served for ridiculous patents.”
America has first to invent while most other countries have first to file.
Might I suggest that you at least take the time to read and learn about at least the basics of our patent system before commenting?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
The System Works
We do know that RJR is a wing-nut though all this is quite interesting about just how much of a wing-nut.
Which Alias Is Mike Using?
Oh! Oh! I know!!! He’s using “staff.”
Oh wait, sorry, that’s yours. I was momentarily confused by your lack of pathetic signature.
Just a thought
“And if you’re focused on 2-9, you’re probably doing it wrong.”
When going into any type of business it is wise to be aware of what the risk factors might be.
For example, invention promotion companies talk a good line while increasing the likelyhood of the inventor failing by ten or more fold.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
exclude others
“Many inventions from ancient times were completely lost when civilizations perished because they were kept secret.”
Not much of a historian, are you? I’ll add that to the list which includes not must of an anthropologist, archaeologist, and various others who delved into the past with some small expertise.
In Western Europe ancient techniques and invention were lost because the western Roman Empire collapsed and with it that knowledge.
It never disappeared in the eastern Empire (Byzantium) and was gleefully incorporated into the knowledge and lore of the growing Islamic regions where it was developed further and, much to the shock of western Europeans, “rediscovered” when places like the Alhambra library fell to the barbarian “hordes” of the growing Spanish kingdom.
You know, Ronald, things like the concept of the number “zero” as a mathematical tool. Unknown by the Romans and Greeks and those who came before but developed and built on by those the pre-Renaissance Europeans called Arabs. Why our numbering system is still called Arabian, by the way.
You really need to get yourself an open mouth (talk radio) show to display your woeful ignorance on. What the hell, Glen Beck makes millions doing just that or does he have a patent on it?
exclude others
A question, Ronald, easy to answer.
“I spent much of my career working as an engineer and what made me good at it was that I have a multidisciplinary background.
“
Just what university did you get your engineering degree from and in what year? Just want to know.
And check.
exclude others
“Not much of a historian, are you?”
I have always had a casual interest in history, enough to read publications like Archeology Today and to read a variety of books.
I was already aware of the fact that some knowledge was preserved but it was certainly not all of what was lost. Not just Roman but countless other advances such as dyes and much other technology was completely lost at many points in history.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Someone has to be original.
Do you know how many pacemakers were created before Greatbach’s? Greatbach’s innovation was to improve the pacemaker’s power source. That’s right – innovation. His wasn’t even the first implantable pacemaker.
Laser, MRI, pacemaker, (I don’t know what “children leukemia treatment” you’re talking about, so I can’t say) – the history of all of these devices shows that they are built on prior research, by multiple people/institutions, and if anything, show just how important sharing and, omg, innovating can be.
BTW, extending life is meaningless if life is not worth living, and art helps make life worth living. 😛
Someone has to be original.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Watt_Patent_1769_No_913.pdf
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Someone has to be original.
“BTW, extending life is meaningless if life is not worth living, and art helps make life worth living.”
Tell that to someone who is dying. Art is interesting if one is not concerned about their emanate demise but it is most certainly not a substitute for life.
Pacemakers were not practical until Greatbatch produced his batteries. Note that the Inventors Hall of Fame inducted him for this.
All inventions are built to various degrees on those which proceeded them but each was shared under the terms of patents. They were not free.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
“Now then, as to patent law, one thing is that natural processes such as mutation aren’t supposed to be patentable but still the patents were awarded.”
The mutation is not what was patented.
“People who have this mutation don’t get that choice, do they?”
Before the test was invented they had no choice except to wait and see if it affected them. Today they have a choice to test for the problem.
That test cost a great deal of money to create and it represented huge risks.
If those who invested in the creation of the test are stiffed you and bet that no one is going to invest to invent others.
So, is the public going to agree to raise taxes to fund these inventions, or will congressional gridlock going mean that these inventions completely dry up?
Regarding “Mr Robertson, the inventor, licensed it in Canada at a reasonable rate while he wanted a ridiculous amount to do the same in the United States. Guess what? He lost that market and the money that went along with it”
Which is the way the system is supposed to work. The same applies to genetic testing.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Someone has to be original.
Funny, my quote says that exact thing and you still try to appeal to ridicule rather than answer the question of innovating in the fields presented?
exclude others
Why our numbering system is still called Arabian, by the way.
“Arabic” actually. There’s a good book on the history of zero:
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476
Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
So why is it that other countries have better monorails?
Why is it that the US lags behind other countries regarding train service or education in those areas? I doubt that people are truly innovating with regard to patents but mainly in sectors where competition occurs (such as software that isn’t doing much, if anything, with patents)
Someone has to be original.
Jay, this thread has gotten so long that it is becoming a pain to navigate.
Your post was not clear. My response was polite, and it is a problem that so many people on TechDIRT simply do not understand even the basics about how the patent system works.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Someone has to be original.
No, but art is a way of expressing a life, and many people (not you, apparently) take great pleasure in great art. It might not extend life, but it can give one something to contemplate other than pain or loneliness or depression during the final hours. All I have for this is hearsay from people in hospice, so sorry, no links.
Also, art does make life more pleasant, so disregarding art as offering nothing great for society is insulting to many artists. Please stop maligning art as unimportant.
A note about Kmart
Altbough Kmart WAS officially founded in 1962, its roots go back much farther. Kmart grew out of S.S. Kresge, a ‘Five and Dime’ retailer established in 1899. In contrast, Walmart’s roots only go back as far as the 1940’s.
Someone has to be original.
“Please stop maligning art as unimportant.”
You misunderstood my position. I am not saying art has no value, rather that the referenced medical inventions have more value. Art is optional where life and liberty are at risk.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Leapfroging
“Why should I? Our culture values the ability of writing under a chosen name and it is quite easy to understand why.”
I agree that the right to anonymous speach is an important tradition but it is a fact that comments have more credibility when the author is willing to be associated with them.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Someone has to be original.
“it is a problem that so many people on TechDIRT simply do not understand even the basics about how the patent system works”
So you are more than one person?
Leapfroging
Which is the greater evil, using anonymity or a false identity?
If the comments here are to be believed, you are a con man posing as an inventor, and you are out to steal the money of the people you claim to represent.
Someone has to be original.
“How about you explain again how children learn, is there child inventors?”
There are children who actually produce viable inventions. It is rare.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Just a thought
“So, in a situation where someone invents something and someone else patents it, who do you support? The “inventor” or the patent holder?”
Under American patent law the inventor is entitled to the invention. But they need to be able to prove that they were first and that they exercised diligence in advancing their invention.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
New argument.
“My response was polite, and it is a problem that so many people on TechDIRT simply do not understand even the basics about how the patent system works.”
Actually, no. You continue to use a derogatory tone and continue to ignore the point I made about Toyota’s history. They were forced to pay the “original” maker of hybrid cars, regardless of the fact that Toyota made these cars through their own research, as evidenced here when all signs point to them doing their own thing. That is a tax. Alex Severinsky did nothing with his patent for 10 years but as soon as Toyota stepped in with their own work, it was basically shown that somehow, they infringed on his patent.
To add insult to injury, look at what both parties agreed to:
“The parties agree that, although certain Toyota vehicles have been found to be equivalent to a Paice patent, Toyota invented, designed and developed the Prius and Toyota’s hybrid technology independent of any inventions of Dr. Severinsky and Paice as part of Toyota’s long history of innovation.“
So in the end, patents are becoming more about taxing innovation than anything else.
So in all, what have we learned from this tax on innovation? That if you’re successful, lawyer up rather than invest in new technology. Also, you continue to espouse that this patent was needed. As demonstrated, Toyota did all this by themselves and it is the patent system that is holding back their innovation.
Leapfroging
One of the organizations I founded is the leader in fighting invention promotion fraud. See http://www.InventorEd.org/caution.
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person’s social worth is who doesn’t like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read http://www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
The System Works
One of the organizations I founded is the leader in fighting invention promotion fraud. See http://www.InventorEd.org/caution.
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person’s social worth is who doesn’t like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read http://www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
(reply to this) (link to this) (view in chronology)
exclude others
One of the organizations I founded is the leader in fighting invention promotion fraud. See http://www.InventorEd.org/caution.
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person’s social worth is who doesn’t like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read http://www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
(reply to this) (link to this) (view in chronology)
@this patent guy then @151
See: http://www.InventorEd.org/caution/isc, aka. http://www.InventHelp.com
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC http://www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
@this patent guy then @151
See: http://www.InventorEd.org/caution/isc, aka. http://www.InventHelp.com
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC http://www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
InventHelp.com
See: http://www.InventorEd.org/caution/isc, aka. http://www.InventHelp.com
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC http://www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
@this patent guy then @151
Read about how ISC-InventHelp.com bully tactics backfired.
http://www.inventored.org/caution/friedman/
Rogue Patent Attorney Sanctioned – Becomes Vacuum Salesman
http://www.inventored.org/caution/kaardal/
Some companies never learn.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re:
He knows he’s full of shit, theres no missing the tell tailed signs of a shyster. He never addresses the responses that address the problems with the system, he just cuts and pasts the same text from the same brochure.
exclude others
The question is when did you learn engineering? Not what organization are you advertising for.
And what type of engineering did you study?
The System Works
If anybody should be investigate is you Mr. Riley.
The guy who takes money from people is trying to convince others he is fighting for them that is just priceless.
Why you are not in jail is the real question, you got to be a real weasel using “donations” and not “payments” make it legal what you do.
You are a snake oil salesman and I feel sorry for the people who believe in your crap.
Leapfroging
You are telling me you made a website that claims is about fighting fraud (totally looks legit, btw), but you are not actually denying that you are a scammer. You, sir, are a pro.
Re:
Walmart sucks.
Re:
Wait, Chick. What didn’t you people make sense on? 😛
No answers Mike, way to connect with fans :)
So after all this, lots of talk, as usual. But little substance..
Riley, way to hyjack a thread !!!, you know it diminishes what you say..
So did we conclude that the budget airline actually ‘copied’ the other failed airline, or was that just a Mike strawman.
Did they copy the hiring structure, the routes, the timetables, the lease agreements for the aircraft, the terminal facilities ???????
Or did they copy “budget airfairs”. So simplistic Mike, but that appears to be you all the way.
You would not even bother to look at the bigger picture..
Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
“Thing is, patent lawyers are paid by the hour. So obfuscating the entire process of innovation for profit is in his best interest.”
I am not a lawyer. I am an entrepreneur-engineer-inventor. I do manufacture my inventions.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
How To Study Patents
See: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm
This will teach how to find relevant data.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
I find the engineer aspect highly questionable.
Where did you earn your degree?