In case it’s not obvious, comments 10 through 13 above are all written by the same person, a patent lawyer on the East Coast who has repeatedly come here to tell lies and throw personal insults our way.

We have repeatedly tried to engage him in a civil manner, and point out where we think he’s wrong, but he insists on making up stories, throwing out more insults and refusing to actually discuss the issues.

I once again ask him to substantiate any of his statements, especially the outright lies about how we’re somehow in the pay of RIM. In the past, he has also accused us of being in the pay of the NY Times and CNN.

As for his final comment, which actually has a little bit of substance (in between calling us ignorant and morons). However, while it’s clear he has no interest in actually listening to what we are saying, I will try to respond to the actual points, for anyone else who is reading this (who can then decide for themselves whether or not we are truly ignorant or morons). I will not stoop so low as to send any insults back towards him.

First of all, it’s hard to see how this is “ignorant” when it’s accepted fact that a monopoly on anything will hinder innovation. The fact that one company is trying to shut down another that successfully innovated by bringing a product to market is slowing down innovation. There’s nothing to debate there, and it’s hard to see how anyone could disagree with that statement.

His claim that “the innovation took place years ago” is also quite interesting, because it shows one of the biggest problems with those who are so in love with the patent system. They believe innovation is a single step — the first step — and everything else after that is separate. However, innovation is an ongoing process, and RIM has continued to innovate their products. If they infringe on a tiny part (which is a huge if), it seems ridiculous, and bad for everyone, for them to have their entire product line, including all additional innovations shut down because of it.

Secondly, he claims that we are advocating RIM should be allowed to market a pirated product. That’s not true. As we’ve said repeatedly, the issue is that RIM did not pirate this technology.

His next statement is actually 100% correct. “An independently developed infringing product.” This is a point that we have made repeatedly. An independently developed product should not be considered infringing, because it clearly did not take anything from the patent. Therefore, there is no net societal benefit for punishing the independent developer. In fact, since the products were developed independently, it suggests that the original patent is not valid — as patents are only to be given out for processes that are “non-obvious to those who are skilled in the art.” If mulitple companies are (as in this case) developing similar products at the same time, it certainly suggests that it’s the natural evolution of the market, and the normal market system of rewards is incentive enough for the innovation. This is basic economics.

His next comment (after calling us morons) is that part of the patent right is that they can shut other companies down. This is absolutely true. It is a part of the right… however, it’s one that we think is wrong. This particular lawyer loves to pull this trick. We point out why something in the current system (such as this) harms the original intended purpose of the system (to promote innovation) and he responds by saying we don’t understand the law because that IS the law. That, obviously, is besides the point. The discussion is about why that’s bad… whether or not it is a part of the law. Pointing out that it’s a part of the law doesn’t prove that we’re morons — but proves that he is avoiding the actual issue.

His final point, that RIM has not shown itself to be a “willing licensee” and that they should just shut up and license the patent, is again misleading. If RIM did not infringe on the patent and don’t believe the patent is viable, then why should they shut up and pay? That doesn’t further the cause of innovation in any way.

Anyway, that is the substance of the argument. I’d be willing to focus on those issues, but instead, we’re likely to get more pseudonyms, lies and insults.

For a lawyer to be posting outright lies and pseudonyms seems like a violation of his responsibilities. I wonder if his clients know that this is how he spends his free time?

Once again, Rob Scott is coming back with personal insults rather than facts, and he never once discusses the issues.

I’m not sure what he’s talking about concerning a “parallel site”. We have hosted Techdirt Wireless as a separate site for many many years. The fact that he couldn’t figure out the difference, and yet now believes it was all an elaborate ruse to set him up is quite astounding.

We specifically addressed the issues he raised, and he comes back by posting under fake names repeatedly, telling lies about us, insulting us with names like “idiot” “moron” and “ninny.”

And then he accuses us of “attacking” someone when we disagree with them. Our complaints against RIM in the past were for their actions, not the company itself. We did not attack them, but their actions in misusing the patent system (and, remember, according to Mr. Scott, we’re being paid by RIM… ). It’s funny too, because Mr. Scott seemed so excited to point out that RIM holds patents too, as if he was proving that we were unfairly taking one side. Yet, once again, like most of his assumptions, we proved him wrong.

How did he respond? Apologizing? Admitting an error? No, with more pseudonyms and personal attacks on my intelligence.

Sorry, Rob, if the best you can do when discussing the actual issues is to tell people to “trust” you, you’re wasting everyone’s time. So far, all that trust has proved is that you’ve repeated lied, when called on those lies, you ignore it and respond by attacking my intelligence.

We have plenty of smart readers here. I figure they can judge for themselves who is being honest here and who has the agenda.

I’ve stated repeatedly: I am more than willing to discuss the issues in a civil manner. I’ll let the readers here read my posts (all written under my name) and the various pseudonyms (all from the same IP) put up by Rob Scott and determine who they trust more.

Rob Scott is claiming that Joe, Carlo and I are the same people. He likes to claim that anyone who disagrees with him are the same people — though, of course, anyone who knows us knows that’s completely false.

Finally, he claims we “removed” the article on peer reviews of patents — when we did no such thing. It’s still right where it has always been.

The “reader” who claims we’re “out there” is the same poster.

So, once again, a series of perfectly false accusations and insults from Rob Scott, and not a single attempt to discuss the actual issues of patents. Rob Scott is a practicing patent attorney — and yet he likes to spread lies about us online while posting under a series of pseudonyms. His clients and colleagues must be thrilled.

It’s not worth responding to these further, unless he actually discusses the issues surrounding patents.