The Aftermath Of RIM-NTP: Other Patent Hoarders Emboldened
from the story?--we-need-a-story? dept
Now that the RIM-NTP case is over and the lawyers are counting the loot from a bunch of patents that are very likely to be rejected, it appears that (1) plenty of other patent hoarding firms can’t wait to step into the limelight as the “next NTP” and (2) reporters who have been covering this case need to move onto some new patent hoarding company. Well, step right up Forgent, you’re the next contestant on “Just How Screwed Up Is Our Patent System?!” The AP has an article all about Forgent’s attempts to be the next patent hoarding company to get all the attention. There’s absolutely nothing new in this story. We’ve covered Forgent extensively in the past. The company has done nothing to help innovation in the imaging space. They had some patents collecting dust that they retroactively decided could cover jpg compression technology, and went on a licensing kick, scoring millions of dollars. Of course, now, people are finally digging up some prior art — but either way it highlights the problem of the patent system. This company did nothing to promote innovation. It did everything to hinder it. And the comments from the company about how this is “the American way” are ridiculous. Holding back others from innovating and improving the market is the American way? Unfortunately, this is the legacy of the RIM-NTP decision. More companies feel emboldened to not innovate, but simply patent and wait for others to innovate.
Comments on “The Aftermath Of RIM-NTP: Other Patent Hoarders Emboldened”
Whose fault?
The real culprit in all of this is the Court of Appeal which has encouraged these shakedowns by creating a doctrine of rubber stamp injunctions over the last twenty years. The Federal Court must have intended this consequence since, as the courts are fond of saying, men are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their own acts. We can hope that the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to rap the Court of Appeal’s knuckles in the eBay v. MercExhange case.
The Forgent patent talks about video compression done by eliminating redundant information in the time dimension while jpeg is all about eliminating redundant information in still images in the spatial dimensions.
Hard to see how Forgent’s “statistical” compression in time for videos could ever apply to the “deterministic” (fourier) compression in space of jpeg for still images.
I guess Forgent is counting on no Defendant ever being able to explain the difference to a Federal Judge. Given the apparent low (non-existent?) level of technical sophistication of the Federal Bench that may be a pretty safe bet.
Re: Whose fault?
Forgent has collected so far about 100 mil from about 40 companies.
Do you think that all those copmpanies employ complete fools like you who are unable to read and interpret the claims of a patent ?
I would also suggest reading Amicus brifs in Ebay vs . MercExchange case: pretty much everybody except high-tech bullies and financial institutions sided with MercExchange.
Re: Re: Whose fault?
Do you think that all those copmpanies employ complete fools like you who are unable to read and interpret the claims of a patent ?
Nope, but I do think most of them can do the basic math, and recognize the expense and uncertainty of fighting the patent probably costs more in expected value terms than just paying off the company.
So, tell me, angry dude, how has Forgent helped move innovation forward?
Re: Re: Re: Whose fault?
Mike, don’t even. You’re clearly beneath Angry Dude’s attention since you can’t even comprehend his vastly complex patent which is so fundamentally advanced that even to list the patent number here would be to destroy your fragile intellect.
Re: Re: Whose fault? -
Angry Dude
I liked and agreed with the Intel / Microsoft brief in eBay and MercExchange.
The problems with the present law on granting injunctions are manifest in what happened in RIM/NTP
Re: Re: Whose fault?
> Do you think that all those copmpanies employ complete
> fools like you who are unable to read and interpret the
> claims of a patent ?
Jessie Jackson did the same thing – it’s extorsion by FUD
Re: Whose fault?
You clearly have no understanding of how your judicial system works with inaccurate posts like that, learn what the function of the courts is, or any topic, before posting opinions that do nothing but demonstrate one’s ignorance on a topic.
Re: Re: Whose fault?
Mr. Stevens: Your comment
You clearly have no understanding of how your judicial system works with inaccurate posts like that
Seems to be directed at me. I think I have a pretty good idea of how the courts work. I’ve been sued a few times. One guy even took me all the way through a trial (and lost). What part of my comment do you think is factually incorrect?
I would place part of the responsibility on the misplaced priorities of the criminal justice system in this country. Patent trolling isn’t too far off from extortion, and a couple solid RICO convictions on this racket would be exactly what it takes to shut this crap down.
techdirt is patently ignorant
Patents ARE property.
It does not matter who owns the property to enforce property rights.
Forgent righfully acquired JPEG atent after they bought Compression Labs and they can do whatever they want with their patent. It’s none of your fucking bussiness.
MicroSoft and Intel an patent pirates – they steal whatever IP they can steal from small entities.
“Patent trolls” or IP-holding companies are agents of justice -they do to those big companies what they really deserve and actually promote the progress by helping small inventors to monetize their patented inventions.
Re: techdirt is patently ignorant
Angry dude,
You keep claiming we’re ignorant, and then give huge generalizations with no support.
Forgent bought a patent and sat on it. It was only just as the patent was expiring that they figured out a way to stretch it to claim that it covered jpgs. It’s not the “jpeg patent.” The company never had anything to do with the development of jpegs and never did anything to move the body of art forward. So again, please explain how that helps innovation.
Saying it’s none of our [cursing] business, doesn’t help your case. It’s not support. It just makes you look childish.
MicroSoft and Intel an patent pirates – they steal whatever IP they can steal from small entities.
That’s a pretty broad generalization. Have they done that? Sure. Doesn’t mean they always do. And, if you actually took the time to read what we write, we have no problem condemning the actions of large companies when it comes to patents as well.
“Patent trolls” or IP-holding companies are agents of justice -they do to those big companies what they really deserve and actually promote the progress by helping small inventors to monetize their patented inventions.
This makes no sense. First of all, I usually try to avoid the term patent troll, but since you like it so much…
The point of the patent system is NOT about “justice” and giving big companies what they “deserve.” It’s to promote innovation. That is NOT the same as helping small inventors monetize inventions. It’s all about bringing products to market. I know you disagree, but the point of patents is about increasing overall societal good, and that’s done by bringing products to market — NOT hoarding a patent and suing those who actually do develop products indepedently.
It’s not “ignorance” as you repeatedly claim. It’s simply a difference of opinion. There are incentives and disincentives created by the patent system. You believe the incentives outweigh the disincentives — though, you are also biased, as you are a small patent holder (which, you STILL refuse to show us). We believe the disincentives outweigh the incentives. I’m more than willing to discuss those points civilly.
Calling us ignorant doesn’t help the debate. Maybe it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t do much to enhance your credibility (that along with your refusal to simply supply a patent number, whether or not we’re too stupid to understand it).
Re: techdirt is patently ignorant
Patents ARE property
No. Patents are actually monopolies created and enforced by the State.
Some supporters of the current patent system claim that patents are constitutionally protected.
That seems to me to be wrong. It seems to me that the Constitution only permits a patent scheme to the extent the scheme actually promotes the useful arts and sciences.
NTP and Forgent are produing anything useful!
Angry Dude — try to comprehend something.
Intellectual Property laws don’t exist just for the good of the innovator. In a totally free and open laissez-faire capitalist economy, where there was no governmental regulation of commerce, the inventor or author would have little incentive to innovate. In a world of wide-open freedom, anyone should be free to produce anything they choose, regardless of where the ideas come from. The problem is, of course that some ideas take considerable effort to transfer from the realm of imagination and inspiration over to the real physical world where a useful product can be brought to market. Intellectual Property laws exist for the sole reason of encouraging the creator to produce a marketable product, with the knowledge that he or she will make sufficient profit to justify the effort. If all intellectual property owners acted like NTP and Forgent, then intellectual property laws would never have been enacted in the first place. These laws are not designed to protect people who just want to sit on their ideas. Ideas are not like your grandmother’s jewels which, if stolen from your home, you no longer have them. Ideas can be spread, and anyone can have them. If intellectual property laws were designed to protect ideas as if they were physical objects wherein it was forbidden to possess and utilize an idea if you did not think of it first, then intellectual property laws would never expire, just as possession of the family jewels never expires—The family jewel get passed on to your descendants for as many generations as the family members choose. Intellectual property law exist for the promotion of commerce. Period.
Re: NTP and Forgent are produing anything useful!
>Intellectual property law exist for the promotion of commerce
Who told you this ? Or did you come to this conclusion by yourself ? The statement is 100 % incorrect.
Patent law, in particular, exists with the ONLY purpose of encouraging open publication of new and useful inventions as opposed to keeping them secret.
That’s right, that is the only purpose of patent law: publish your discovery in exchange for a limited time monopoly.
Despite a possible inconvinience in a short term, in a long temr the society gets the benefit of knowing and keeping all the technical know-how.
You remove patents and we go back to Middle Ages with Trade Guilds keeping their manufacturing secrets forever etc.
Nobody in his right mind would ever publish anything new and useful in a commercial sense. Certainly not me…
Ask any real inventors out there if you don;t belive me.
Do they do it for money of just for pure joy of inventing ?
The answer will be the money. Just ask them…
Everybody wants to be paid for his work, including inventors.
Work of mind coming up with abstract concepts is just as hard, or in fact, much harder than the work of actually making some product.
You people seem to not understand this. Amen, What can I do ?
Re: Re: NTP and Forgent are produing anything usef
Patent law, in particular, exists with the ONLY purpose of encouraging open publication of new and useful inventions as opposed to keeping them secret.
If that is correct then it is not working. In the NTP and Forgent cases the publication of their patents did not lead to the BlackBerry or jpeg. If you were right then independent discovery should be a complete defence to a patent.
Work of mind coming up with abstract concepts is just as hard, or in fact, much harder than the work of actually making some product.
General concepts are easy and cheap. You could stick a think tank full of intelligent people and ask them to come up with general concepts and they should be able to generate a couple of patentable ideas per person per year. There are exceptions but the real challenge is to design a product that the public wants to buy and find a way to produce it and get it to the public at a cost they are willing to pay.
Re: Re: Re: NTP and Forgent are produing anything
>General concepts are easy and cheap.
Well, how easy is it for you to come up with the general concept of public key cryptography ?
How about the idea of asymmetric transmission used in each and very 56k modem ?
Not too easy I guess 🙂
Even something as obvious as intermittent windshield wipers was not obvious at all for quite some time until some guy came up with this simple idea.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re-invention
Well, how easy is it for you to come up with the general concept of public key cryptography ?
Well, it would be impossible for me since I’m not smart enough but it seems public key encryption was invented independently at least three times so there are people who are smart enough.
“It was disclosed in 1997 that public-key cryptography, including the RSA cryptosystem, was first invented at the British intelligence agency GCHQ in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Ellis and Cocks (for more information click here); however, in 1976, Diffie and Hellman independently discovered public-key cryptography and, in 1977, Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman independently discovered the RSA cryptosystem.”
http://cam.qubit.org/articles/crypto/publickey.php
Re: Re: Re:3 Re-invention
Not quite so…
RSA was based on Diffie and Hellman results in part, so it wasn’t independent.
The British intelligence work, assuming they actualy had it all which I doubt, was NOT published, so nobody knew about it.
The key word in the patent world is PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, so the progress gets actualy promoted.
Secret work does not promote the progress.
And once something is published, there is no reason to re-invent the same thing, and it is pretty much impossible to prove that somebody actually discovered something on his own without reading published patents at http://www.uspto.gov.
That is the problem with independent re-invention – you really need mind-reading laws to enable that kind of defense.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re-invention
You started by using the example of the idea of public key in general and not the specific example of RSA.
The benefits of publication and the likelihood of independent invention go to the heart of the usefulness of a patent system.
You do not promote progress if you hand out exclusive monopolies to people for ideas whose time has come and which would be inevitably conceived by someone else within a short period of time. Telephones, jet engines, radar, and transistors are all major inventions which were arrived at independently by two or more inventors.
You also do not promote progress if patents are written or published in a way which is inaccessible. How many people browse the published patents looking for inspirations for new products or solutions to problems? If published patents are not a major source of solutions or inspiration then there may be little or no benefit from the patent system.
Patent policy is important to the technological success of the US but it appears that unfortunately this is an example of a situation where the special interests (patent holders and patent attorneys) are completely dominating the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re-invention
Special interests you mentioned are NOT small patent holders and their attorneys, but the big multi-national corporations. They just want to have a patent system to suit their needs , e.g. keeping small competiors from directly competing with them and miliking them for royalties.
They just think they are somehow entitled to this, but not some small comapny or, God forbid, some independent guy working from his basement.
Hypocricy abounds these days each and every time the subject of patents is brought up…
Just remember, the BIGGEST “patent troll” is IBM with over 40,000 patent, most of them are potentially invalid, by the way.
If IBM is allowed to do it, why can’t I do it ? I certainly can and will, once I raise some money for litigation…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re-invention
Just remember, the BIGGEST “patent troll” is IBM with over 40,000 patent, most of them are potentially invalid, by the way.
If IBM is allowed to do it, why can’t I do it ? I certainly can and will, once I raise some money for litigation…
Didn’t you just invalidate your entire argument?
You’re basically saying the patent system sucks, but since it sucks in a way you can take advantage of it, it better be left alone until you’ve taken advantage of it.
You’ve just lost all your credibility by admitting the reason you like the patent system is for the fact that you can leverage it to your own personal advantage.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re-invention
Yes, patent system sucks, is this what you want to hear, Mike ?
Now, what other system can you propose to compensate somebody who is doing some fundamental money and/or time-consuming R&D, including drug companies spending billions on discovering new medicines and all the small guys tinkering with stuff in their basements ?
I don’t know of any other system in existence, do you ?
aND, btw, you guys want to weaken the patents thinking it will make everubody happy – it won’t.
Weakening patent injunctions will only benefit multi-nationals
, evrybody else will suffer.
You should be advocating better patent quality = less patents, not weaker patents.
Patent quality is the main issue nowadays.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re-invention
Yes, patent system sucks, is this what you want to hear, Mike ?
Sure, because in the past you seem to have always denied it and call us ignorant every time we point that out. So, uh… now you agree with us?
Also, not quite sure why you would say the system sucks and then call us stupid every time we suggest improvements.
Now, what other system can you propose to compensate somebody who is doing some fundamental money and/or time-consuming R&D, including drug companies spending billions on discovering new medicines and all the small guys tinkering with stuff in their basements ?
Well, those are two very different cases, and patents may work in the first case, but for the second case there’s still no reason why the market for the actual products can’t handle the load.
aND, btw, you guys want to weaken the patents thinking it will make everubody happy – it won’t.
No. We don’t want to make everyone happy. We want to make the net result better for society. There will always be losers when you make changes. However, we believe the net benefit will be much better with a better system in place.
You should be advocating better patent quality = less patents, not weaker patents.
Patent quality is the main issue nowadays.
Uh. Again, do you not read what we write? Over and over and over and over and over again we’ve been advocating improved quality for patents.
So you agree with us. Why are you still so angry with us?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re-invention
Dear angry dude
I do not care about making everyone happy. I care about having a patent system which strikes a fair balance and which promotes progress. The shareholders of NTP and Forgent would almost certainly be poorer and less happy under a patent system designed by me.
I would: (1) seriously raise the bar for qualifying for a patent (2) require plain English in the patents (3) lower the standard for a challenge to a patent (4) do away with injunctions where there has been independent discovery of the innovation (5) in areas of rapid technological progress (e.g.: software and electronics) where a particular discovery is in some appropriate sense inevitable, reduce the patent period to five years (6) do away with business method patents entirely.
You personally might even be better off under a patent system I designed. Maybe you would even be using a screen name like “happy dude”, if I were in charge. The current system, which you defend so vigorously, has left you a seriously bitter individual.
Silly Patents
Hey, I think that I’m gonna patent the use of whitespace in source code. Then I’m gonna subpoena Microsoft and demand that they release the source code to Windows so that I can see if it contains any whitespace.
Well, Yeah, but they're leeches, right?
I’m fascinated that parties haven’t filed writs to document ‘sudden fits of cognition’ that include ‘Sale for value present’ or ‘Sale for Lessor value’ or even “Sale for more than it is worth but buy it anyway, asshole!’ These seem to me to be the most obvious and new-yorkish (read:fuck you I’m a new yorker god damnit) challenges to assail anyone selling anything on the net.
Or maybe I’ve been away too long….right????
Fire back! 🙂
Johnny (NYC kid)
Well, Yeah, but they're leeches, right?
I’m fascinated that parties haven’t filed writs to document ‘sudden fits of cognition’ that include ‘Sale for value present’ or ‘Sale for Lessor value’ or even “Sale for more than it is worth but buy it anyway, asshole!’ These seem to me to be the most obvious and new-yorkish (read:fuck you I’m a new yorker god damnit) challenges to assail anyone selling anything on the net.
Or maybe I’ve been away too long….right????
Fire back! 🙂
Johnny (NYC kid)
Being an inventor myself....
Angry dude, being an inventor myself I would just like to say that your statement from the 18th of March 2006 at 0545 reading
>Ask any real inventors out there if you don;t belive me.
Do they do it for money of just for pure joy of inventing ?
The answer will be the money. Just ask them…
Everybody wants to be paid for his work, including inventors.
I would just like to say this one thing, That statement is the biggest load of B.S I have ever seen. Further, you show a blatent disregard for proving your statements.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am NOT a patent holder. I have 200+ inventions floating around my house and not a single one of them is patented. As a matter of fact, I am considering releasing them under something similar to the GNU license. (You do know what GNU is right? If not here is a link, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html) The reason being my aim in inventing is NOT to make money, but to improve the society in which we live. Granted there are some-things that must be done when inventing to protect your property, such as not releasing images or descriptions until they are licensed, However by using a license similar to GNU not only will I retain credit for the Original work but John Doe down the road can say, “Hey! This Device works really well, but if it had this….” and he can add it and re-release it under the same license. By holding that original license in my hand, I can prevent him from making money off of my original idea, but still allow him to further the good of society.
Also, as noted in previous comments, You have mentioned several times that you are a patent holder, now PLEASE I beg of you, back yourself up. Otherwise you are blatently disrespecting the other readers and making yourself seem (as Mike so kindly put it earlier) incredibly childish and Niave. And if I may make one final suggestion, get yourself a good spell-checking program and check your posts before you submit them. Easy way out, copy paste into Microsoft Word click the spell check button. I am going to hope you don’t need a tutorial on that, however if you do I will write one for you and post it on my website.
Peace!
Re: Being an inventor myself....
>I have 200+ inventions floating around my house and not a single one of them is patented.
You gotta be kidding me …
200+ inventions ? Are you some kind of Ben Franklin type of guy ?
What are those inventions ?
btw GNU license is the biggest piece of crap I ever read…
RMS is a crazy guy, and you seem to take his philosophy for serious ?
And btw, I don’t spell check or even read my posts once I type them , not for Techdirt at least – my fucking time is not cheap
When I write to my senator I sure use proper grammar and vocabulary and spell check everthing in Ms word.
Re: Re: Being an inventor myself....
“200+ inventions ? Are you some kind of Ben Franklin type of guy? What are those inventions ? ”
Why should he share those when you won’t disclose what your super-awesome patent is, angry dude?
Dear Dungy
“The phrase intellectual property does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, and for very good reason. The phrase is a lie. It turns ideas into land, and allows corporations who own the vast majority of patents and copyrights to control anyone who doesn’t serve them.”
ZDNet
Here’s one reason why computer patents are bad
When I travel, I use the public roads. If I see a private gateway, I keep out, and go by a different route. But when I write a computer program I cannot tell whether the methods I write are publicly useable, or which are protected by patent. If there were obvious gateways and “keep out” signs, I would easily implement my program in a different way that avoided any patent. But there aren’t. So the patent troll can wait untill my program has been tested and documented and shipped to hundreds of customers before revealing his alleged claim, by which time it’s very expensive to implement it in a different way, and cheaper to pay the troll.
This does nothing to encourage programming, or faith in the law for that matter.
What system does our govt. have that's not screwed
Find one then we’ll talk about who’s smarter than who and who knows more about what’s going on in the world.
200+
200+
oops! Sorry about the blank post.
Yes AngryDude 200+ inventions. Most of them are simple improvements to already created inventions, but different enough to warrent the term Invention. For example, (Not that I think you have ever used much less even seen a REAL chainsaw, nevermind sharpen one) just about anyone who has used a chainsaw knows how hard they are to sharpen, I have in the works (Still in design phase) a sharpener that sits with in the chainsaw sharpening as it runs. (Admittedly not as good as stopping cutting and sharpening it with a file, but I am predicting a 40% increase in the length of time you can cut without stopping to sharpen.)
Or how about my electrical socket that won’t depress away from the faceplate (A rather common problem I am finding in older houses) which is being tested right now in my own house in about 7 different rooms.
Like I said, they are just simple improvements on previous inventions, but the thing is, that is why inventors (REAL INVENTORS not children like you) invent. To improve society. Now, I have shared two of my inventions why don’t you either put up or shut up.
You seem to be under the impression that you are god’s greatest gift to mankind because you hold one measly patent. And worse, you are lording your supposed patent over the rest of us, claiming that the corporations are corrupt because they troll their patents, then, you stated
>Just remember, the BIGGEST “patent troll” is IBM with over 40,000 patent, most of them are potentially invalid, by the way.
If IBM is allowed to do it, why can’t I do it ? I certainly can and will, once I raise some money for litigation…
which says that you are no better than anyone of these patent trolling companies.
When you finally decide to come off of your mother’s apron strings, come back and talk to me. When you decide that you are a grown man, I will talk to you as such. Until then, Here is a pillow and a blanket, I think it’s nap-time
Re: 200+
>For example, (Not that I think you have ever used much less >even seen a REAL chainsaw, nevermind sharpen one)
Man , you come to conclusions based on insufficient info.
I have a nice house sitting on an acre of woods, so i get to use chainsaw quite often, I already went through 2 chainsaws – the cheap ones are just junk, I will be buying something more expensive like Husqvarna.
(And althout I work on signal processing algorithms, I do have my garage full of power tools – table saw, miter saw, air tools,
router etc. etc. etc. – sometimes you need to do something else for relaxation)
But you are right, I never sharpened one – I just replaced chains.
It’s good to know that somebody is thinking about such improvements.
Now, try to make a little money on your inventions without patents. Good luck…
And if you don’t patent and don’t publish your results they will be just lost for everyone else.
Money aside, patents do have some purpose – open publication, so everuone can go to http://www.uspto.gov and read about your work.
I am going to release these....
I am going to release these once i get the “Legal” bugs worked out of my own license system and try to get it implemented. Although Financially, to you, this may appear a downside, what if somebody on getting my chain sharpener can make it so that way you have a 200% increase in chain life time instead of only 40%?
Under the current patent system he would be un-able to patent said improvement if he fails to prove that there is a substantial difference from mine.
Under the mode I want, he would be able to, without fear of legal recourse, build his sharpener off of mine and release it thus improving society.
The biggest problem I have with the world today is it’s obsession with money, and people (corporations included) using the intellectual property laws to make money in perverse ways. This is why I want my own licensing scheme rather than the Patent.
Think about it this way.
Power Companies stop charging for electricity -> Base level Mfgrs have reduced overhead, stop charging for plastics, metal etc etc -> Product manufacturers no longer pay overhead on base materials, stop charging for everything else -> Consumer recieves all goods at no cost. Money is no longer an issue.
Money has no more value to it than does a rock on the ground it’s all percieved.
But that is just my humble opinion
Re: Communism rules !
What you describe pretty much amounts to the basic concept of Communism, you know, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
A wonderful concept by the way…
Now, as someone who spent first 23 years of life under the Communist Party rule in the USSR, just trust me, this never works in practice.
Instead you will eventually have a totalitarian society without any freedoms for regular citizens whatsoever…
Capitalism sucks, but it’s the best we have so far.
At least I do have some rights here and can sue whoever I want… and protect my own property using guns (just joking)and lawyers, whether it is my house and land, or my intellectual property.
I am going to release these....
I am going to release these once i get the “Legal” bugs worked out of my own license system and try to get it implemented. Although Financially, to you, this may appear a downside, what if somebody on getting my chain sharpener can make it so that way you have a 200% increase in chain life time instead of only 40%?
Under the current patent system he would be un-able to patent said improvement if he fails to prove that there is a substantial difference from mine.
Under the mode I want, he would be able to, without fear of legal recourse, build his sharpener off of mine and release it thus improving society.
The biggest problem I have with the world today is it’s obsession with money, and people (corporations included) using the intellectual property laws to make money in perverse ways. This is why I want my own licensing scheme rather than the Patent.
Think about it this way.
Power Companies stop charging for electricity -> Base level Mfgrs have reduced overhead, stop charging for plastics, metal etc etc -> Product manufacturers no longer pay overhead on base materials, stop charging for everything else -> Consumer recieves all goods at no cost. Money is no longer an issue.
Money has no more value to it than does a rock on the ground it’s all percieved.
But that is just my humble opinion