Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Patent Trolls Cost The Economy Half A Trillion Dollars

from the ouch dept

Last month, in talking about an episode of Planet Money with James Bessen on it, we mentioned his new research suggesting that patent trolls evaporated half a trillion dollars in wealth. Now that research, done with Michael Meurer and Jennifer Ford has been released (thanks to Tim Lee for the pointer): The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls.

Note that this isn't trying to count "losses" like the entertainment industry in trying to make up numbers about what would have sold. This is a direct observation on value of companies sued by patent trolls, and looking at how much of their value evaporates in response to the lawsuits. The $500 billion number represents a total over 20 years -- from 1990 to 2010. But, even worse (and not surprisingly), the numbers show that this number has been going up. Over the last four years, the total decimation of value from patent troll cases has averaged over $80 billion per year. In other words, over $320 billion of that $500 billion came in just the last four years.

Does this mean that some of this money is being transferred to actual inventors? Nope. Again, the research finds otherwise. The incentive to inventors has not increased by nearly the same amount. The research points out that licensing companies could add value -- but that under the current system, they do almost certainly do not. And as the problem is getting worse, all Congress can do is pass some hapless reform bill that doesn't even deal with the patent trolls issue at all.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Vic, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    Is that Million or Billion:

    "$80 million per year. In other words, over $320 million of that $500 million"

     

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

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 8:53am

    Ahh, once again, Mike plays the very card that he so grandly objects to when the other side does it.

    Mike, does the money evaporate? Do the litigants take their settlements and push the money into a furnace, burning it and making it disappear? Or, just like your supposition in the music world, the money just goes in another direction and stays in the economy?

    A transfer of money from place to another doesn't change anything. It's net nothing. It's lower on this side, higher on the other side, right?

    So what exactly is your point here? Is the Movie industry right when they say that the economy has lost income, or are they full of it? If they are full of it, then this report is equally full of it because it looks too closely at only one side of the deal.

    Come on Mike, pick one side and work with it.

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Randy (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Re:

    Is that Million or Billion:

    FTA (page 2): During the last four years the lost wealth has averaged over $80 billion per year.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 8:59am

    Re:

    You know, seeing that Mike has already anticipated your troll and rebutted it in the article, don't you feel stupid posting that?

    If you had read the *second* paragraph of the article before posting, it would have made you look much less stupid.

    Here, I'll quote it for you:

    Note that this isn't trying to count "losses" like the entertainment industry in trying to make up numbers about what would have sold. This is a direct observation on value of companies sued by patent trolls, and looking at how much of their value evaporates in response to the lawsuits.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 8:59am

    speaking of trolling

    stand by here it comes... oh too late they got here first...

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:04am

    Re:

    Don't you hate pants?

     

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

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:06am

    Re: Re:

    Dumbass... that is just Mike making an excuse. He rubutted nothing, he just poo-poo'ed it and ignored it.

    Would you like to try again?

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:08am

    Re:

    Billion. Fixed.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: Nussing!

    Trolls feel nothing.

    Just click 'report' and ignore them--they die off from starvation if nobody feeds them.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    deane (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Dear AC,

    mike is pointing out the direct cost of patent trolls sucking money from companies/individuals that actually create. if you wish think of it this way simply. for each dollar made 50 cents is then taxed by the trolls. where that money goes IS NOT AN ISSUE! all the actual inventors/creators are losing out and having NO desire to then make things causing less innovation.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    So what exactly is your point here? Is the Movie industry right when they say that the economy has lost income, or are they full of it? If they are full of it, then this report is equally full of it because it looks too closely at only one side of the deal.

    Responded in the post already. These are entirely different numbers looking at different things. The MPAA's numbers look at "missing transactions" which makes no sense. These numbers look at actual value of corporations -- which is a case where value can and does evaporate. So there's no money going somewhere else in that situation.

    If you're really interested in this topic (which I know you're not), there's a really good episode of Planet Money (a very early one) on how companies valuation can, in fact, evaporate.

    So it's perfectly fair to talk about losses from diminished valuation. But talking about losses because people choose to spend money elsewhere doesn't make any sense.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:16am

    Re: Re:

    Note that this isn't trying to count "losses" like the entertainment industry in trying to make up numbers about what would have sold. This is a direct observation on value of companies sued by patent trolls, and looking at how much of their value evaporates in response to the lawsuits


    Wouldn't this money be used elsewhere though? Doesn't it still go through the economy in another place? Also, are we talking about 'value' or 'price'? The price of something going down does not necessarily mean that it has any less value.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re:

    Only ones that are to tight fitting.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re:

    This is a much better explanation than what is in the post. I replied above before seeing this.

     

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

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Nussing!

    Thanks, I clicked report on your obvious troll post.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Nussing!

    This post sums up your motivation:

    You don't have a point. You just want to derail the discussion.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Randy (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Obviously you missed the part in the above article where the study is based on actual stock market event information and lawsuit filings. As opposed to the numbers that BSA/MPAA/RIAA use, where they can't even keep the numbers straight within their own articles. (Actual vs Potential)

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not really. What is being referred to here is the following:

    An innovative new start up forms using a some cool technology. They get a bunch of press and some venture capital financing. The markets then value the company and its technology at a total of $50 billion.

    Then a patent troll lumbers from under its bridge and sues said tech company for infringement. No matter the out come, whether they settled or lost, the market then reduces the valuation of the company to $5 billion or less. That is a $45 billion loss in value. That is what is measured.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:24am

    Re:

    "the actual inventors/creators are losing out and having NO desire to then make things causing less innovation."

    Great with no innovation or new invention there is nothing for trolls to do.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    greg.fenton (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re:

    Other typo at end of first paragraph: opening parenthesis but no closing.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nussing!

    Hey it's a crappy job but someone has to do it.

    What else can you do when you are sitting all alone living in your parent's basement?

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, I figured that out from Mike's reply below. I was missing the point before that.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:41am

    I wonder...

    If a city knew it had the largest number of trolls per capita would they call themselves the Troll Capital of ____?

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:42am

    That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    "This is a direct observation on value of companies sued by patent trolls, and looking at how much of their value evaporates in response to the lawsuits."

    THERE IS NO "direct observation", it's just etimates on paper. If turned out FALSE DUE TO patent infringement, then simply the estimate didn't forecast accurately. The "wealth" didn't evaporate: WEALTH CAN'T EVAPORATE! Your notion of "wealth" isn't tied to physical goods, is all, typical ivory-tower notion.

    And NO, you can't make yourself right and immune to controversy by stating obvious objections first. That's just a childish trick.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    But what if that value evaporated due to a failed patent infringement claim. Say startup A is valued at $50 million, troll B sues A for a bogus patent. There are a few outcomes: B wins/A settles/A wins. In the first two cases you are sort of correct in that the initial valuation was flawed due to this patent issue. But say as a result of the third result that the valuation drops due to various factors instigated by the patent lawsuit. This is actual wealth being lost, because without the trolls failed attempt the value would've stayed at the correct initial valuation, but due to the troll's interference (even though it failed) it may have weakened investors' valuation of the startup. So post lawsuit if the valuation drops 5 million (or even $1) that is value taken out of the economy.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re:

    oooh, I hope he tells us to burn our pants!

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    "But say as a result of the third result that the valuation drops due to various factors instigated by the patent lawsuit."

    No. "valuation" is not "value". You can't even discuss it without repeating the essential error.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re:

    The trolls will just be more innovative with their lawsuits or invent something new to sue about. Of course im sure someone will hold the patents on whatever they come up with....

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    Check out #5 in value on dictionary.com ...

    valuation   [val-yoo-ey-shuhn]
    noun
    1. the act of estimating or setting the value of something; appraisal.
    2. an estimated value or worth.
    3. the awareness or acknowledgment of the quality, nature, excellence, or the like of something: public valuation of the importance of education.

    value   [val-yoo] Show IPA noun, verb, -ued, -u·ing.
    noun
    1. relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess.
    2. monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in value.
    3. the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.
    4. equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.: to give value for value received.
    5. estimated or assigned worth; valuation: a painting with a current value of $500,000.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wouldn't this money be used elsewhere though?

    Nope. This isn't *money*. This is *valuation*. Valuation can be turned into money, but it's not the same thing. It's valuation that is disappearing. Valuation can evaporate. And that's what this report shows.

    Doesn't it still go through the economy in another place?

    Nope. Valuation can disappear.

    Also, are we talking about 'value' or 'price'? The price of something going down does not necessarily mean that it has any less value

    Valuation is not "value." Valuation is a form of price.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    I'm actually going to side with ootb on this one. In this context, valuation is merely the price, not a representation of actual "value."

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So Mike, define "value", and define how "value" but not "valuation" can be taken out.

    Also, how do they measure "value"? Since you keep telling us that price and value are not the same, why are they measuring value in dollars? It would seem to be a contradiction to basic economics.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re:

    Second paragraph? AC troll didn't read the first paragraph. He responded to the headline.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Nussing!

    OMG, have you no heart!

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nope!

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    Of course wealth can evaporate.

    Let your car to the elements and never service it and you will see wealth evaporate right in front of you.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    So glad you understand that Apple's it is still a little shit company that doesn't produce that much of anything and only have valuation at Wall Street.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    S, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: That was /estimated/ value on paper.

    A contrived example; a better one:

    Buy a new car and drive it off the lot; 25% of the car's "worth" is instantly and permanently gone in smoke.

    Or more insidious:

    After driving the car home, some scandal occurs which causes public perception of the car you drive to plummet; the resale value suddenly goes down 50% because nobody wants to own one (even though the car's actual utility and material worth haven't changed one iota).

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Vic Kley, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

    Is it Possible you could examine a solution like a Patent Mediator?

    This is a great deal of money and if even modestly accurate indicates the great value of the inventions involved.

    No inventor wants to give up more then 90% of the value of the invention to lawyers.

    A special industry by industry supported board of mediators could help substantially by giving the inventor someplace to go other then a law enforcement group.

    After rejection or insubstantial attention by a given company the inventor could approach the mediator and try to settle based on a general industry understanding of reasonable allocation of value. Failure to follow the mediators recommendation might then lead to a suit.

    In general the inventor would be better compensated and the industry pay less for a given invention, if not other reason then the fixed 5 million plus cost of a trial.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Sep 20th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why? He isn't discussing 'value,' you are. Better to ask your questions regarding 'valuation,' which it seems you don't understand.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    staff, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    another biased article

    Bessen...The agents of banks, huge multinationals, and China are at it again trying to brain wash America.

    “Patent troll”

    Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

    Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

    For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You might want to actually learn basic economics before you claim that basic definitions contradict basic economics.

    Or you could just make yourself look like a fool. Your choice.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

    Re: another biased article

    Can you point me to your patent on useless spam? I'd like to laugh at it.

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    staff, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 2:52pm

    more corporate theif propaganda

    from the first page of Bessen's paper...

    “Thanks to research assistance from Tim Layton, data from Patent Freedom and support from the Coalition for Patent Fairness”

    Coalition for Patent Fairness: from their web site..."Coalition's members include Apple, Autodesk, Cisco Systems, Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Micron Technology Inc., Oracle, RIM, SAP and Symantec"

    Another study bought and paid for by the world's largest patent infringers!

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    S, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

    Re: another biased article

    I literally cannot come up with a satisfactory response for something as appallingly awful as what you just said.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 4:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you take an econ 101 course, you know that there is such a thing as aggregate output. Government established monopolies reduce aggregate output which is bad for the economy because it means that we have fewer things. Remember, things are what we have economies for. We have economies so that we can have things. It's well known, from econ 101, that government established monopolies reduce the quantity of things that we have. That's bad.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 4:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and here is a wikipedia article about that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Re:

    What one must measure is the amount of labor that's being put into producing product and into innovative endeavors.

    Patents encourage the employment of more lawyers. Since lawyers and litigation don't produce anything beneficial, such deters labor power away from the production of useful product and towards litigation. Sure, those lawyers could spend that money elsewhere, in sectors of the economy that does produce stuff, but that's not fair to those that do produce. Why should others work hard to produce stuff just to give it to lawyers that produce and contribute nothing of value beyond worthless litigation.

    When companies have to litigate, they are wasting resources, and labor hours, litigating, which directs attention and human labor power away from innovation and the production of useful goods.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And your definition of a "monopoly" is...?

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Sep 21st, 2011 @ 1:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, he responded to "new story on Techdirt". It doesn't seem to matter what the story is, just so long as he can post a moron comment in there attacking Mike.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 21st, 2011 @ 2:11am

    To 'lose' it you have to have earned it in the first place.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 21st, 2011 @ 2:19am

    To "lose" it you have to make it in the first place

    That "loss" is really a gain, you do not pay out those large sums of money because you DID NOT make a profit from that patent.

    If you are found using a patent that is not making your any profit, then you will not be fined massive amounts of money for damages (damages are much less) it is only in the cases where the patent infringer has made a great deal of money by apply a patent (that they do not own) and makeing large profits.

    Therefore, you do not get to pay out large sums unless you have gains alot from that patent.

    The way Mike puts it, that money just 'evaported' when in reality it want from the management of a large corporation that is large because of the exploitation of a patent they do not own.

    All that is happening is the rightfull owner (of the patent, not of the invention) is rightfully claiming his share of the profit being made from his patent.

    And yes, alot of people invent things but do not have the ability or finances to commercialise those patents, they use a third party for that purpose also to reduce risk.

    As most patents fail to make profit, there is a high risk, if the inventor decides to cut that risk and sell that patent for a flat rate that is his right to do that.

    So that figure you state as a loss is actually a GAIN of funds and certainly economic stimulation.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    darryl, Sep 21st, 2011 @ 2:31am

    Re: You got flagged for that !!!!

    Not many here can see basic logic and economics, and yes they do think they push it into a furnace.

    Or that the money has to be made in the first place, for it to be distributed to the owner of the IP.

    You are right it is a tacid admission that the patent system works and that companies can make high profits by applying technology developed by someone else.

    It is proof that the IP has value, and that the patent system does in fact work very well.

    I hope they flag me as well, :)

    It's great to see the fear in their eyes when they work see the that it is a clear argument that is PRO patent and IP...

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    Butcherer79 (profile), Sep 21st, 2011 @ 2:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Monopoly" is a board game published by Parker Brothers, a subsidiary of Hasbro. The game is named after the economic concept of "monopoly", the domination of a market by a single entity.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 21st, 2011 @ 4:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So Mike, define "value", and define how "value" but not "valuation" can be taken out.


    Value isn't taken out.

    Also, how do they measure "value"? Since you keep telling us that price and value are not the same, why are they measuring value in dollars? It would seem to be a contradiction to basic economics.

    You don't. We're not talking about value.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 21st, 2011 @ 4:25am

    Re: more corporate theif propaganda

    Sense of entitlement much?

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    patent litigation, Sep 26th, 2011 @ 8:02pm

    a step?

    The new disjoinder rules in the recently-passed patent reform legislation may help to reduce the scourge of patent trolls. At least now no one can say that Congress isn't doing anything to address the issue. Even though it's likely not enough to resolve the problem, at least it seems to be a step in the right direction.

     

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


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