Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs

from the major-mistake dept

The President has been talking up how Congress now needs to get focused on "job creation." That certainly sounds like a good thing, but it seems pretty clear he's going about it the wrong way. In a recent address, President Obama said that a key component to his job creation strategy was to get the patent reform bill that's bouncing around Congress to his desk, because he wants a bill that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea.

He's wrong. His reasoning is also wrong. He claims that making it easier to get patents is important "because we canít give innovators in other countries a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs." But that's ridiculous, for a variety of reasons. First, it assumes that only one person in the US could come up with a particular invention (and, Mr. President, patents cover inventions, not "products or ideas") and that the only one person who comes up with an invention is also the only one who can build jobs around it. As for innovators in other countries -- what the US patent system does has no impact on their ability to open a new business or create new jobs elsewhere. The logic makes no sense.

But, more importantly, as we've been arguing for years, but which the mainstream press is finally waking up to, the very problem of our patent system is that it's way too easy to get patents, and that limits job creation and is costing companies billions. The way to create more jobs is to have fewer bad patents, to allow for an independent invention defense and to stop thinking that more patents mean more innovation.

Mark Cuban has jumped into the discussion as well, highlighting how the patent system is a significant cost of doing business for all of his companies, and he'd be able to hire a lot more people if all of his companies weren't getting slammed with bogus patent infringement lawsuits.
Every technology company I have is getting hit by patent lawsuits that are the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Every week it seems like a new one comes up. Between having to pay our lawyers a lot of money to review each, to increasing insurance rates and settlement costs because we canít afford to pay to fight the nonsense, itís an enormous expense. So much so that money that would have gone to new hires to improve and sell the product has to be saved to pay to deal with this bullshit.

Iím not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. Iím talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls. These arenít operating companies that are trying to protect their business. These are companies that aggregate patents and raise capital for the sole purpose of suing companies and extorting money from them.
And yet, despite this widespread outrage over a completely broken patent system, no one in Congress has made any move to fix it. Instead, they're still debating a useless bill that fixes none of the problems, and makes other problems worse. Patent reform has become a lobbyist's delight, rather than a real fight to help encourage innovation, and it's too bad that the President seems to be leaning in the direction of holding back innovation and destroying jobs by making the system even worse.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:01pm

    Typo

    2nd paragraph, next to last sentence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Showing surprise that the President is eager to pass a job killing bill is like claiming surprise that water is wet.

    There has been zero laws passed this presidential term that has created a single job. Any "job" that has been created is at the expense of one or more private sector job.

    What this president has done is create more and more government regulation that will hinder the economy and increase the role of government in the lives of what used to be free individuals.

    Sadly, the Republican party has no intention to reverse any of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TCBloo (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

      My theory is this:

      We wouldn't be in this mess if the government knew what it was doing. The housing and economic collapse, $14.5 TRILLION debt, the sad state of our IP system, shitty schools, overpriced healthcare, economy draining entitlement programs, the failed War on Drugs, 3 military wars, etc. can attest to that.

      For all the reasons above, I consider myself a limited-government libertarian. The less the government can fuck up the better.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

        Re:

        That's why I like it when our legislative branch is split between dems and repubs. It is also why I think there should be an automatic sunset law on every law they make. I want them so busy voting on old shit that they don't have time to fuck us worse with new shit.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          FuzzyDuck, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

          Re: Re:

          I like your idea. Another one along similar lines is a maximum number laws, measured in total number of words. Something like the debt ceiling, but then a law ceiling... want to make a new law? Got to repeal an other law first.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:09pm

          Re: It is also why I think there should be an automatic sunset law on every law they make.

          Should that be a law? In which case, wouldnít it have a sunset provision as well?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 9:08pm

          Re: Re:

          I like that idea. They make so much law...why? It's gruesomely wasteful when you look around at all the law already lying around.

          I'd rather see old laws revised or stripped out and made understandable to the average citizen.

          Actually, I'd like to see our "lawmakers" be held for treason should they inflict damage on the country. I'd like to see them legislate like their lives literally depend on it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

        Re:

        Wall Street, I mean the government didn't get hurt at all from the housing and economic collapse. The rich got richer, and the poor got screwed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        opit (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

        Re: if the government knew what it was doing

        What the government is doing is called Institutional Corruption. All one needs to do is reflect on things like the total hash of 'Iraqi Reconstruction'....which absorbed funds at a great rate and produced absolutely nothing of value. If you don't agree - check out Fallujah water pipeline project.
        Cheney's Halliburton made a 'killing' in Iraq of more than one variety with 'no bid' contracts not subject to fiscal review.
        Is this new ? Remember Gen. Armstrong Custer of the Indian wars ? He was in such bad odour in Washington that the Wild West looked like a better idea than the Capital. Why ? The President's brother was running rampant fraud in war contracts for the military....and he was silly enough to 'blow the whistle'.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      There has been zero laws passed this presidential term that has created a single job.


      So you're saying the GOP is just as much to blame right? Or more so because they explicit said they were going to 'create jobs' and have done nothing but partisan abortion bills and such?

      Any "job" that has been created is at the expense of one or more private sector job.

      Funny, this president is saving 750k, presumably private sector, jobs PER MONTH. Ain't great but it's a damn sight better than his predecessor.

      What this president has done is create more and more government regulation that will hinder the economy and increase the role of government in the lives of what used to be free individuals.

      If by 'hindering regulations' you mean, prevented insurance companies from simply cancelling your policy, trying to prevent another wall street meltdown, yes, yes he has.

      'Less regulation' is what got us into this mess, we need more regulation to protect against runaway corporatists who have no interest in the public good. Ask any business which they want, lower taxes or increased demand for their services...they aren't going to say lower taxes...


      All that said, this is the Dem's general modus operandi, big media getting to write their own laws that do nothing to promote the general good and only line their pockets :(

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TCBloo (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

        Re: Re:

        Sources for any of your claims?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sources for any of your claims?


          - lack of job bills, see http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php. I defy you to find anything resembling a focus on jobs. You see however that Abortion was the 3rd thing considered, and a few more times in the top 10.

          - 750k jobs a month, google 'bikini graph' to see how many jobs were being lost every month when Obama took office, and how in about a year, he and the Dems turned that around into at least breaking even.

          - stimulus, this actually 'created' jobs, and heavily contributed to the previous point. When that ran out because the size of the downturn was underestimated, we're seeing the weak jobs since. How much better would we have been without the GOP created 'debt limit' boogeyman?

          One side has consistently tried to downplay anything that might help the average person, because they don't want to do anything to make Obama look good. Hell, McConnell in the Senate said it explicitly - "My number one priority to it make sure Obama is a one term president." Not jobs, not the economy, no America...#1 is to downplay anything the president does.

          Nice.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re:


        'Less regulation' is what got us into this mess, we need more regulation to protect against runaway corporatists who have no interest in the public good. Ask any business which they want, lower taxes or increased demand for their services...they aren't going to say lower taxes...


        'Less Regulation'? What less regulation? The federal government has done nothing but increase the amount of regulation in the financial, housing and healthcare markets. This regulation is what led to much of this recession.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The subprime mortgage crisis was a direct result of the lack of regulation in the financial industries.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Steven (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually it was an example of lots of really bad regulations, and people who knew that the government would bail out the quasi government/private entities if things got bad.

            So it was a result of massive government involvement. I don't know how you could possibly argue it was from a lack of regulation.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How does any amount of regulation let a ton of bad debt get sold at AAA rated?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Steven (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                They were AAA rated because everybody 'knew' they were guaranteed by the US government (which turned out to be true) even though all parties would publicly deny that. This was because of the government run institutions (fanny/freddy) that issued them wouldn't be allowed to fail.

                Without that government guarantee they wouldn't have a AAA rating.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  But if the government hasn't fixed the problem, so we're still on the same path. How many times can we raise the debt ceiling before the entire market that is based on confidence, collapses because there is no longer any confidence? AAA+++ with a smiley face won't mean shit, just like it didn't when Lehman's had one.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Jay (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:08pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    That may have to do more with the Federal Reserve backing the US government...

                    And we're right back to the government fixing problems that it messes up in the first place.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      And we're right back to the government fixing problems that it messes up in the first place.

                      I don't know what makes you think the government is messing things up. Most bankers and lawyers are quite pleased with the US government. If your aren't a banker or lawyer, that's your own problem.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              pixelpusher220 (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Bad vs Less, does it really matter? Both contribute to the same problems.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Fair enough. If you consider a law that bans regulation of derivatives 'regulation', then I suppose that is bad regulation.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Nicedoggy, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually no, the financial crisis was because of deregulation on the part of governments everywhere.

          And they specially used the Game Theory thing to prove to others that it would work.

          They just didn't count that maybe the assumptions underlying that theory were flawed, so even if the math was flawless it reached the wrong conclusions.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You mean like the Third derivative? A mathematical equation so complex and convoluted by making assumptions on a person in Colorado's ability to pay as compared to a person in Florida?

            It wasn't deregulation, though that helped. It was a number of factors coming in to bring about a shit storm of epic proportions. Gramm Leach Bliley, banks colluding for just such a thing (look into the funding for it...), Barney Frank, rejecting the Republicans wanting to actually fix it, Barney Frank, the Government Sponsored Entities Freddie & Fannie and how they cooked the books, Barney Frank, and fake demands based on how much people could afford a payment.

            Oh, and Barney Frank.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Vincent Clement (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re:

        It's not about less or more regulation. It's about appropriate regulation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

        Re: Re:

        This isn't a Dem/Rep/Tea issue and it's not a matter of more or less regulation. It's a matter of less bad regulation (i.e. this patent bill) and more good regulation (someone needs to keep an eye on the financial sector... ideally someone that is willing to bring charges against bankers that defraud companies and/or the public)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And who is going to bring charges against high government officials for promoting anti-business laws that destroy society?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            jackwagon (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            High government officials are promoting pro-business laws that are destroying society now and no one is being brought up on charges. That's the problem.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There's no punishments for the government being selective with laws. That's a key factor in why bureaucracies are pretty much the antithesis to free democracies.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 11:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There's no punishments for the government being selective with laws.

                Selective enforcement is good. Just ask Mike.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 9:38am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yet again with same BS arguments. You're not helping your cause. Just want to let you know that.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 11:47pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Yet again with same BS arguments. You're not helping your cause. Just want to let you know that.

                    You want me to give some links to Mike arguing for selective law enforcement or do you want to shut up can crawl back up his butt?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The eejit (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Anti-business laws? There's no such thing, surely? And US Society doesn't exist, so much as slide into Oblivion.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      What is surprising is that this president couldn't be screwing up any worse if he tried. Sometimes I think he is purposefully trying to wreck the world economy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Cornocopia

    Patent reform has become a lobbyist's delight...

    And thus a politician's delight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    Any1 else thinking S&P might be doing it right with the AA+ thing? ;)

    I once saw a charge of a lil guy with blinders on a tricycle (Reps) pulling an elephant (Democrats) to the abyss. Then next you see the world bound to the elephant being drawn to the same fate.

    I guess I'd draw them both pulling the world to the hole.

    The US Govt is killing the US. Amusing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Michael Long (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    Competition

    One thing I've not seen discussed is what happens if -- and that's a big if -- we reform our patent structure and even go so far as to eliminate software and business process patents as Mark Cuban desires.

    Many other countries have mirrored our IP and patent laws, and so the problem as I see it is that we've dug ourselves into a very deep, very wide, very big hole.

    If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.

    Nokia and Samsung and others could sell, say, iPad clones here, whereas Apple could still get hit with patent lawsuits across the globe.

    In essence, it's the Cold War unilateral disarmament problem. He who disarms first is at a severe strategic and tactical disadvantage...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Competition

      Uuh, you might have patent and trademarks confused.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

      Re: Competition

      So you think its simply a patent thats keeping people from reverse engineering the A4/5 and iOS? Umm. No. Thats a silly argument. I think the fact that once you start directly copying a competitor your business model becomes 'wait until they release, then reverse engineer, then release', creating such a delay that you would never have a competitive product, and it would fail.

      Thats the reality of the situation. Now stop thinking everyone wants to copy Apple just because you do, Samsung, Nokia, Google, MS, HTC don't want to copy Apple even a little bit, they want to copy their success, which means innovating at the same or greater rate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TCBloo (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

      Re: Competition

      One way to solve that problem is to say something like, "If you sue an American company in a foreign country over IP issues, you lose your ability to sell your product in America for 5 years."

      We have one of the largest markets in the world, so we should use it as leverage against whomever needs leveraging.

      TC

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        greg.fenton (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

        Re: Re: Competition

        Perfect! Build in legislation that encourages American companies to trample foreign companies in their homelands.

        Can't think of anything that could go wrong with this idea...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Bengie, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re: Competition

        And then international trade comes along and says the USA will be cut off from all trades unless we stop illegally blocking foreign companies.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 10:59pm

        Re: Re: Competition

        One way to solve that problem is to say something like, "If you sue an American company in a foreign country over IP issues, you lose your ability to sell your product in America for 5 years."

        Why an arbitrary time limit? Tell them, "Your products may not be imported into America until you repay the American company for any economic damage your suit caused it. The sooner you pay up, the sooner your products can be sold here."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

      Re: Competition

      If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.

      Actually most other countries don't have s/w and business model patents to the extent that the US does so this is a false dilemma. (If they do have them it is mostly due to pressure from the US.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nicedoggy, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

      Re: Competition

      It changes nothing, the U.S. would still need to patent those things overseas, patents are not copyrights, there are no treaties that I'm aware of, saying one have to protect a U.S. patent in European countries or in Asia or elsewhere.

      Besides the same way Samsung and Nokia could copy anything others inside the US could also copy anything they do and demand a smaller profit, the great thing about a real open market is that locals start to do things by themselves and only the very capable will be able to displace them.

      Walmart had no protections and they destroyed mom&pop stores everywhere they won that battle on competence alone in the beginning now they do have government support(federal/local).

      Asian countries beat the US at everything, why are people trying to create a system that gives more power to those who reach the top first at the expense of everybody else.

      I would be very worried that Asian countries could actually do a better job at issuing more patents and closing every growth path there is, thus corralling the US yet again, like Walmart did with the mom&pop's.

      You are not dealing with dis-motivated incompetent people, those are highly motivated people, with technical competence on par with anything others have to offer, how are the over-pampered American business people going to survive the onslaught? They won't because their focuses is not in competing is on tucking tail and running, that is not a good tactic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Vincent Clement (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Competition

      If something is easily copied or reverse-engineered, then perhaps the 'invention' should have not been granted a patent in the first place.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

      Re: Competition

      Don't eliminate, follow the drug patent system

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    The government doesn't "create' jobs, jobs are created in spite of the government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    I think I finally figured out Techdirt.

    Mike, are you a Tea Bagger?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

      Re:

      Are you entirely happy with this administration? Because if not, then you're probably at completely the other end of the spectrum. There's no middle ground. Either you lovelovelove Obama or you're a Tea Bagger. Everything isn't quite so black-and-white (no pun intended, I'm pretty sure).

      The shift toward libertarianism in this country has less to do with the Far Right's constant noisemaking and more to do with the government's obtuse willingness to make life worse for their constituents while claiming to be making every effort to improve things.

      You don't have to be a "Tea Bagger" to realize that our "representatives" don't really look outside their own special interests and campaign funding for legislation ideas. Bush started this precipitous drop and Obama's helping make sure the whole thing ends up at the bottom of the ravine.

      I think you'd like him to be a "Tea Bagger" because that would make it easier to dismiss everything out of hand as some sort of ultra-right-wing insanity. Unfortunately, you're going to have to keep considering the fact that there is some validity to his arguments.

      I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that you're some sort of union-loving, left-wing Democrat just because you disagree with Mike's stance. There's no reason for me to believe this until you actually indicate it by something you write.

      To sum up: disliking your government and distrusting its actions isn't ALWAYS a partisan act.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Steven (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

        Re: Re:

        Distrusting your government and it's actions should NEVER be considered a partisan act. It should be the default position for all citizens.

        FTFY

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re:

        Tim, let's be honest here: When you stand back and look at all of Mike's stands, they pretty much read like a Tea Bagger manifesto.

        Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama.

        My feeling is he is the perfect person to run in California next time around for the house as a bagger. If he isn't one, he certainly manages to blend in with them pretty well.

        As for dismissing him because he is a bagger, no. I dismiss him because he is a pompous, self assured, arrogant man. I don't need to see his Tea Bagger card to know. But it would be nice to know, just so that there is a little more clarity in the discussions here.

        I mean, heck, he loves Ron Wyden, the democrat most likely to be confused for a bagger. :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hell, I would love less government, less enforcement, and less Obama. I'm a little more moderate on how I want to see the taxes work. A little more fiscal conservation and a little more tax revenue would be a good thing in my opinion, but I'm no financial analyst so I don't really understand it as well as I should.

          However, I think most of the tea party people are insane. So are most other politicians.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Dave, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama.

          Is that all it takes to be a TBer? 'Cause, damn that all sounds good to me, and I hate both parties with near equal vitriol.

          Seriously. Can anyone point out the flaws in adopting a strategy that is "Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama."?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Joe Publius (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Seriously. Can anyone point out the flaws in adopting a strategy that is "Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama."?

            Just to bat for the sake of the devil, there is one very valid argument. As government taxes and services diminish, social services will not neceassarily be able to provide a safety net for the poor, sick, or otherwise underprivileged.

            Now I lean strongly on the side of personal responsibility, but I think it's unfair to say that you believe in personal responsibility, and then not admit that there is a chance that people of all kinds might go unhelped through either private or public assistance when hit hard enough by the misfortunes of life that affect anyone.

            For me though, those chances are worth giving people the liberty to live peaceful lives by their own means.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So you claim that your country currently 'provides a safety net for the poor, sick, or otherwise underprivileged'?

              Really?

              Honestly?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Joe Publius (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Welfare, food stamp programs, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Pell Grants and college loans, Health and Medical Insurance.

                You can debate its level of coverage and effectiveness, but you can't debate its existence.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yes you can. I wont debate the existence of those money-hungry programs, but I do debate the idea that it creates a 'safety net'. Crack and basketball are more of a safety net in the US than your government is....

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Tea Baggers are not libertarians. (I'm not speaking for Mike's preferences at this point, just mine.)

          Less government. Less Enforcement. Less Taxes. Less Obama.

          I am in full agreement with all the above. The name at the end doesn't matter. Obama picked up right where Bush left off in terms of spending, overreach and continued erosion of privacy and whatever was remaining of the Bill of Rights. While many of the Tea Party may agree with the above, the fact is that they are very much a partisan movement and that their selection of representatives (Bachmann, Palin, Armey, etc.) tends to represent a certain moralistic conservatism that is out of whack with what most "unaffiliated" libertarians actually believe.

          For instance, good luck with having the Tea Party decide legalize drugs or privatize public systems. They're more likely to do more of the same. The only difference is that the beneficiaries might shift.

          I dismiss him because he is a pompous, self assured, arrogant man. I don't need to see his Tea Bagger card to know. But it would be nice to know, just so that there is a little more clarity in the discussions here.

          If you've already dismissed him, then why the hell would you even pretend to be seeking "more clarity in the discussion"?

          If we get behind Ron Wyden here, it's because he's one of the few representatives who has actually stood up and tackled bad legislation that everyone else on Capitol Hill considered to be a foregone conclusion. He's one of the few that actually seems to be concerned with the government's attempts to insinuate itself deep into people's lives under the guise of "protecting artists" or "making the US safer."

          Finally:

          When you stand back and look at all of Mike's stands, they pretty much read like a Tea Bagger manifesto.

          That's clearly wrong. Find me a copy of a Tea Bagger manifesto and we can do some comparisons.

          If you don't care whether or not he's a Tea Bagger, then why do you care whether or not he's a Tea Bagger?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, that statement could be interpreted as he is like a particular tea party member, which he is, Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul does not allow moral conservatism to impact his fiscal policies and would legalize drugs and privatize public services in a heart beat.

            On the other side, Mike is CLEARLY not a member of the Tea Party, and thinking he is simply ignoring the facts.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Also,

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html

            And Mike is actually a lot closer to those stated goals than Bachman or Palin are, thats for DAMN sure.

            This actually talks a lot about decentralization of government, which is a fairly frequent topic here.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Joe Publius (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I think I can agree with that, though I'd like to point out that currently Bachman is probably the most public face of the TP and has certainly managed to gather her share of TP supporters with her stances. In the end, movements can fail to live up to their platforms from Day One.

              It's an interesting point to what degree the TP focuses on fiscal issues and decentralized gov't despite having (IMO) a sizable portion of it composed by social conservatives who are ideological and assertive about it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Joe Publius (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:19pm

        Re: Re:

        The shift toward libertarianism in this country has less to do with the Far Right's constant noisemaking and more to do with the government's obtuse willingness to make life worse for their constituents while claiming to be making every effort to improve things

        Got it in one, though I'd like to point out that libertarian-types (or at least I) have a hard time finding a place in US politics because both parties have seek to use government to control me in ways that I think are overbearing or intrusive.

        Heck the Tea Party (TP) itself sides with opinions that I think aren't very libertarian, like opposing gay marriage. Those who think that the TP is focused solely on fiscal issues and has no strong social conservative bent has never listened to any thing Michelle Bachman (founder of the House TP Caucus) has ever said.

        But boy do I digress!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Got it in one, though I'd like to point out that libertarian-types (or at least I) have a hard time finding a place in US politics because both parties have seek to use government to control me in ways that I think are overbearing or intrusive.

          This is exactly the problem. When people start thinking "libertarian" and shift to "Tea Party," they start equating people who want less government with people who want abortion and gay marriage outlawed. These are two very different groups.

          Good luck finding a Tea Partier willing to end the War on Drugs or The War on Terrorism or actually any war, for that matter. There's a whole lot of "status quo" baked into these supposed "revolutionaries."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, the baggers are more than willing to end the war on anything, provided it guts the federal government of power and returns that power to the states. Their entire goal is to bankrupt the federal system, making it impossible for the continued support of welfare and other government handouts (transfer of wealth through taxation).

            They wouldn't directly abolish the war on drugs, they would just gut the agencies that fight it, and turn that enforcement power over to the states.

            My feeling is that much of what the Tea Party stands for pretty much lines up with where Mike is going these days. Either he is a bagger, or a bagger wannabe.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I don't know, or particularly care, about Mike's views outside of the ones he regularly expresses here. Are you claiming to have inside knowledge of his views on social policies that would distinguish him between the typical TP member and someone who perhaps doesn't fit into your set of labeled boxes?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                My assumption of baggery is based on what he has stated here over and over again. He loves state law (like anti-SLAPP in California, where he hides out), and dislikes pretty much anything done at the Federal level.

                Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight.

                What is funny is that he attracts so many socialist friends, because they mistake his views on piracy and such as some sort of hippie-dippy share the love view of the world. They don't realize that it's just another business model, just another way for him to sell his own views (and his time for interviews, conferences, and the like). That is a pure conservative / Republican thinking, and the baggers are just the far end of one of their corridors, right after the large closet that many of the Republican "men" hide in.

                So no, I don't have any grand insight into Mike Masnick off the web, except to say that I haven't seen anything in public that plays any different from the persona he has built up on this site. Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  He loves state law (like anti-SLAPP in California, where he hides out), and dislikes pretty much anything done at the Federal level.

                  It's so fun when I can debunk you with a single link. Not that you'll admit it.

                  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/12583214529/dan-snyder-helping-politicians-recogniz e-importance-federal-anti-slapp-law.shtml

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 4:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    What, because you hope that the feds learn from the states that you are suddenly a federalist?

                    Holy crap Mike, that isn't even a good try. Bagger!

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    darryl, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 2:08am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    what you are going to debunk something someone says about you by refering him to something else you said !!!!.

                    WOW, what a great souce, (I am right now because I claim I was right before).

                    Mike, Really, do you honestly expect people to take you seriously ?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Any Mouse (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 8:31am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Wow, darryl! Another swing and a miss. Debunking what someone says HE SAID by pointing out what he REALLY SAID. Seriously, man, take some reading courses. Start at the fourth grade level and work your way back up.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The Infamous Joe (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  He loves state law (like anti-SLAPP in California, where he hides out)

                  So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system to silence critics? Well, now that I type it out like that, I realize there's a high likelihood that you are.

                  and dislikes pretty much anything done at the Federal level.

                  Tell me, madam, what things you like that the Federal Government does.

                  Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight.

                  So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system? Oh, dang, this again. You *are* in favor of misusing the legal system.

                  What is funny is that he attracts so many socialist friends, because they mistake his views on piracy and such as some sort of hippie-dippy share the love view of the world.

                  This is pure conjecture, if not simply your personal fantasy.

                  They don't realize that it's just another business model, just another way for him to sell his own views (and his time for interviews, conferences, and the like). That is a pure conservative / Republican thinking, and the baggers are just the far end of one of their corridors, right after the large closet that many of the Republican "men" hide in.

                  This smells a lot like jealousy. And faintly of libel. I can only assume that you would have no issue if Mike brought a lawsuit against you, and brought it in Alaska-- since you clearly have no need of anti-SLAPP laws, nor lawsuits to be brought in proper jurisdictions.

                  So no, I don't have any grand insight into Mike Masnick off the web, except to say that I haven't seen anything in public that plays any different from the persona he has built up on this site.

                  Wait.. what? So, as far as you know he's exactly as he shows himself to be on this site. So.. about paragraph #3, where you suggest that he *isn't* like he shows himself to be...

                  Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!

                  I don't know what this sentence means. Did Mike push you down behind the swing set and rip your new dress?

                  It seems like you're a brave lady, heckling from the safety of anonymity without fear of having your life scrutinized.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 4:30pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "you're in favor of misusing the legal system to silence critics? Well, now that I type it out like that, I realize there's a high likelihood that you are."

                    Nope. I am also not a fan of laws that make it very, very hard to sue people who make defaming statements. anti-SLAPP laws raise the bar strongly in favor of "free speech", even if it is hurtful. It's the sort of think Mike loves.

                    "you're in favor of misusing the legal system? Oh, dang, this again. You *are* in favor of misusing the legal system"

                    Nope. In fact, I am very much against it. Mike rails against forum shopping for lawsuits, but has not problem with people "jurisdiction shopping" to hide their questionable / illegal acts. I don't want the legal system to be misused by either side. I find it appalling that Mike supports it, but only for pirates.

                    "his smells a lot like jealousy. And faintly of libel. I can only assume that you would have no issue if Mike brought a lawsuit against you, and brought it in Alaska-- since you clearly have no need of anti-SLAPP laws, nor lawsuits to be brought in proper jurisdictions."

                    Again, what is your point, exactly? He could find out like everyone else what jurisdiction means. He would also have to explain why my opinion rises up to libel, which is unlikely. I am only making the same observations that might be made in a newspaper, or respected online journal. I don't say "Mike is this", I say "Mike, are you this?".

                    "Did Mike push you down behind the swing set and rip your new dress?"

                    No, he ripped your new dress. That pretty much sums up your arguments.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Any Mouse (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 11:37am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      'Nope. I am also not a fan of laws that make it very, very hard to sue people who make defaming statements. anti-SLAPP laws raise the bar strongly in favor of "free speech", even if it is hurtful. It's the sort of think Mike loves.'

                      Anit-SLAPP laws are there so that when someone states the truth they are protected from lawsuits, even if the truth is hurtful. It isn't defamation if it is TRUE, and that is the point.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The eejit (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Do you have a source for saying that Mike has bullied other people with legal threats (i.e. C&D letters, filing suit)?

                  As an actual libertarian (in the minarchist sense), you wouldn't know a Tea Bagger if they teabagged you for a month.

                  I don't see Mike as a hippy, except in some kind of Bizzarorama. Also, nice defamation you have there - be a shame if you were to lose your anonymity...like S.978 would do...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 4:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Did I say Mike bullies people with legal threats? Nope. Please re-read my comments and try again.

                    The rest of your comment, well, I bow to your experience in getting teabagged.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      The eejit (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 4:21am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight."

                      "Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!"

                      I'm an absurdist, and even I can't beat you. That's saddening.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 8:10am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Wow, talk about poor reading skills. You know that thing called a paragraph? You know, when one thought ends and a new one starts?

                        All I can say is that if this is how you read things, no wonder your comments are either ignorant or just totally off base.

                        Bully boy tactics that he uses are "online". I don't mention Mike suing anyone. Why the heck are you going there? Are you that stupid, or are you just a dickweed trying to bait me? Either way, I can now discount you as a total idiot who doesn't understand the basics of communication.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 11:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Their entire goal is to bankrupt the federal system, making it impossible for the continued support of welfare and other government handouts (transfer of wealth through taxation).

              You mean like ending corporate welfare, government handouts to big business and government granted monopolies? The tea baggers I know don't want to end those things.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ron Paul.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Agree.

          Me, I'm liberal or libertarian depending on the issues. Social issues - liberal (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economic - lean liberal (higher taxes, sensible regulation and consumer protection, sensible spending - but get government out of things it doesn't do well that the private sector genuinely does better at). Civil rights - very libertarian (guns, speech, religion, marijuana).

          The two party system doesn't work for me, they agree on too much stuff I disagree with.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      I think I finally figured out Techdirt.

      Mike, are you a Tea Bagger?


      If you read Techdirt and think that I'm a Tea Bagger I would suggest you recalibrate your reading comprehension goggles.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        blaktron (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 7:37pm

        Re: Re:

        I thought we established that 50% of ACs don't, in fact 'read techdirt', but just argue straw men. Reading doesn't help that, so why bother?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        darryl, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 2:23am

        Re: Re: Great comeback !!

        WOW, what authority and power you have !!! how you can counter others arguments with a simple line of meaningless dribble.

        may be you need to recalibrate your composition and writing ability, and your knowledge of we'll everything.

        I can only guess that you have never worked for a company that requires skills and knowledge to be able to employ people and to make money.

        Of course you do not have to know anything do you Mike, you can make money with NO IP, and no knowledge whatsoever.

        And if you can do it, then everyone can do it, even if they lose the ability and skills to perform that work !!

        How does that work Mike ?

        There will come a time, (it allready is here for you) when you have skilled people not applying their skills (therefore not working, or employed) and you will not be able to buy technology developed in the US because no one will be in the US developing that technology.

        But if you want to become a third world country, take Mikes advice and think that "everything is ok, we can give away our skills, developments and expertise and allow other countries to profit, but just not us.

        It's ok that your unemployment is about 10%, you would rather borrow off china, and then give that money back to china buying the products that you want.

        Sooner or later, (we'll now actually) that will come back to bite you, and if you cannot understand that basic economic fact, you lack even more IP that I considered.

        And I have to ask you Mike, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ???

        We all know what you dont know, but few can work out what you know, we know you opinion but that does not mean shit if you cannot display any real understanding..

        Let me guess, you will respond to me by "you have not read what I said correctly". It is never you is it mike...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 4:23am

          You have recieved an infraction at Techdirt: 1. Apostophe Failure.

          And it's pretty clear your spell-check is broken.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Any Mouse (profile), Aug 9th, 2011 @ 8:35am

            Re: You have recieved an infraction at Techdirt: 1. Apostophe Failure.

            It's darryl. Not only can he not spell correctly even 90% of the time, but his arguments are seldom cogent, and he mocks Mike's writing style in one that is more suitable for a grade schooler. You know, in the sort of 'See John. See John run. Run, John, run.' sort of fashion.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 8:22pm

      Re:

      "Mike, are you a Tea Bagger?"

      Let's see, he's a Marxist, a liberal, anti competitive, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Conservative, Anarcho-Libertarian, and even Jewish.

      But he's not a Tea Bagger.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 12:48pm

    Mark Cuban needs to get the ear of the President and explain why there needs to be patent trolling legislation.

    With the stock market crashing, businesses need all the help they can get. The current environment does however basically guarantee that Protect IP will pass. No Senator is going to want to be viewed as anti-business now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    When I saw Obama speeches the first thing that came to my mind is that he is not a leader, he is not experienced enough and don't actually did anything important in his public life before.

    There was no real change, presidents come and go but things stay the same, you keep watching they come and go and eventually when you pass a certain age you will notice that too.

    The good thing about all this crap is that it may lead to a search for a better "guy".

    But really people should take matters into their own hands and start writing their own policies and laws and putting people who will implement those things for them but not at a local level at a national level, when people can do that, then they will get some needed changes, but make no mistakes people too can screw it up bad.

    The reason why is culture, when your culture goes bad so does everything else that fallows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    Innovation Is Bad?

    He claims that making it easier to get patents is important "because we canít give innovators in other countries a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs."

    Huh? He actually said that? He's actually against innovation in other countries? And he views patents as the tool to suppress that innovation? Wow. Just wow. He actually admitted that the purpose of patents is to suppress innovation. What do you want to bet that that was one of those "inadvertent" admissions? I expect to see the patents apologists to be all over that one, trying to explain it away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nicedoggy, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:41pm

      Re: Innovation Is Bad?

      You are dealing with a politician, his obvious escape route would be to point out the word "BIG", he never said to no give any legs, just not the big ones.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

    A rhetorical weapon

    All patent acceptance and submission numbers prove is that people know how to fill out a form that can get stamped by the USPTO. It has nothing to do with the willingness of the person to actually create the invention or create a business around the invention as a product/service. I agree with the stance that patents are now used as little more than a legal tool for extortion purposes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    Equation

    More patents = more lawsuits = more lawyers = more donors to the Democrats

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Prashanth (profile), Aug 8th, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    Wyden for president! I consider myself to be slightly left-of-center (the center, of course, is moving farther to the right every day), but I think Wyden's the only guy who gets *anything*.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:02pm

    I can create jobs

    I was having a debate with a friend a few months ago about jobs and I said I could guarantee massive job creation with one change to our laws: Disband the entire patent system. This made him pause cause it is extreme. I explained: If there are no patents in America, then anyone who thinks they can make something better or cheaper is free to try. If they start trying they will hire others. If they begin to succeed they will hire more people. Companies will still invest in new innovations because it is how they stay ahead in the market with other companies playing catch-up with inferior products in the near term. Additionally, prices for things overall will come down because there will be no more patent license fees to pay. Additionally people will be healthier because all the insanely expensive drugs and medical tests will become much cheaper.

    To prove my point I talked about a business idea I had that would be incredibly popular (creating and installing autopilot kits in cars) but even once I got through the technological hurdles I'd be facing years of patent lawsuits from all the big automakers because they have patents on all the basic technology for it (adaptive cruise control, lane position monitoring, etc) but they aren't making it because they are paralyzed by liability

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mosiac user, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:22pm

    CCTV

    @comment 36 NiceDoggie...."The reason why is culture, when your culture goes bad so does everything else that fallows."

    I am not being mean here. I just wanted to point out that this is unintentionally a very good pun. Fallows? Follows? Get it? Fallows, like empty fields?

    Watching CCTV, they had an American Lawyer discussing China's new venture and focus on what they call "IPR". The moderator of the program pointed out China is still developing their Intellectal Property Laws. The American Bar Member pointed out there are more IP firms just in Chicago, then in all of China. They both agreed it was a growth area for China. Two days later some3 small chinese firm filed suit against Apple for Patent Infringement. I doubt if we have seen anything like what's coming next yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

    Because he is a zionist puppet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 6:44pm

    You got what you voted for, certainly he did not do any of the stuff he said he was going to do but he certainly managed to do everything his critics said he would do. Next time pay attention and realize the more they say they are going to do FOR you really = the more stuff they are going to do TO you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 11:48pm

      Re:

      You got what you voted for, certainly he did not do any of the stuff he said he was going to do but he certainly managed to do everything his critics said he would do. Next time pay attention and realize the more they say they are going to do FOR you really = the more stuff they are going to do TO you.

      I caught on to him back when he was a senator and going around claiming that he was against the AT&T warrantless wiretapping, and then turned right around and voted to give them immunity. It was pretty obvious even back then that he was an untrustworthy, say one thing, do another type of character. But people didn't care. They went gaga and voted for him anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    staff, Aug 9th, 2011 @ 5:41am

    job killing nightmare for America

    "patent reform"

    Just because they call it ďreformĒ doesnít mean it is.

    The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??

    Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, ďstartups arenít everything when it comes to job growth. Theyíre the only thing.Ē This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.

    Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors.

    Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
    http://docs.piausa.org/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This