Patent Reform Battle Descending Into Farce
from the shredding-the-constitution? dept
John Bennett at Against Monopoly points out that a medical device firm has been taking out full page ads in the NY Times arguing against the latest attempt at patent reform. Bennett notes that the ad is only in the paper copy of the Times, but the company behind it also put a pdf version on its website. The ad has a variety of problems in how it presents its argument, which highlight how the debate over this particular topic has descended into farce. To be clear, we agree that the patent reform act has many problems and actually won’t fix the bigger problems of the patent system (and, in fact, will make some worse). Yet that doesn’t excuse some of the ridiculous statements being made by those who oppose the law. First off, the ad starts out by claiming that the patent reform act is an attempt to “alter the constitution.” That’s a blatantly false statement. The Constitution is clear that the purpose of the patent system is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The problem with the patent system is that it’s not doing that. Nothing in the attempts at reform alter the Constitution. The goal is to bring actual patent law back into alignment with the Constitutionally-expressed purpose of the patent system: to promote innovation.
The second big problem with the ad, is that it pretends (incorrectly) that the Founding Fathers wanted to treat what’s now referred to as intellectual property as regular property. It is true, as the ad notes, that the Founding Fathers understood the importance of protecting private property — but they were not talking about intellectual property. In fact, if you read the letters back and forth between Madison and Jefferson, you see that they’re not discussing “property rights.” They’re discussing their (now realized) fear, that giving people monopolies on ideas could do more harm than good. They wanted to be very clear that the rights they were granting were not property rights, but very, very limited monopoly rights solely for the purpose of promoting innovation — and were only to be handed out in the rarest of circumstances, when it was necessary to promote innovation. To claim that the Founding Fathers meant for patents to be property is absolutely wrong.
Next, the ad basically makes up a bunch of numbers for how much patent reform will cost. It points out that it costs a lot to bring a drug to market — but there’s a big implicit assumption in there that patents are necessary for pharmaceuticals to exist, when there’s evidence to the contrary — suggesting that patents actually do more to hold back medical innovation than to help it along. It also claims pretty much all revenue associated with certain inventions as being owed to patents — ignoring the fact that those inventions would have come along even in the absence of patents (and may have developed much faster without patents). It’s absolutely laughable that the ad includes the airplane industry, when the Wright Brothers’ patents almost destroyed the US airplane industry by holding back innovation and keeping other more innovative firms out of the market. It took the pressure of World War I and the US gov’t to finally get around the stranglehold on airplane innovation.
The other laughable part of the ad is that it says that the plan to reveal patent applications after 18 months will have “dire consequences” involving foreign entities stealing American ideas, while invoking the disclosure myth of patents. These “dire consequences” would be a lot more believable if the patent office didn’t already reveal most patent applications after 18 months. In other words, this bit of “reform” isn’t really reform at all, since it’s what the USPTO already does… and the so-called dire consequences did not show up.
At the very end of the ad, the company tosses a bone to the software industry, saying that maybe we should have a separate patent system for the software industry because the fact that the software industry distributes its goods on computers and disks, it’s impossible to determine prior art. This doesn’t actually make any sense, but given the rest of the ad, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Either way, this seems to highlight the level of debate on this issue. Various folks throw out complete nonsense without being able to back it up, and insist that the world will end if the patent system changes. It’s a farce.
Filed Under: patent reform, patents
Comments on “Patent Reform Battle Descending Into Farce”
Mike's nonsense
“Various folks throw out complete nonsense without being able to back it up…”
Exactly, dude !
Folks like you who have ZERO understanding of how patent system works in the real world write all kinds of nonsense articles
But you are right, it is a farce, a bad farce, I should say
When politicians vote according to the wishes of their corporate money donors (like NJ democrats are all againts patent “reform: – see big pharma money, and California democrats are all for patent “reform” – see big tech infringers money) you know for sure that something is definitely wrong here…
Constitution ? Founding Fathers ?
Ha-Ha-Ha-ha-har-har-har……………………………
Just watch the money, dude, always watch the money
Re: Mike's nonsense
Exactly, dude !
Folks like you have ZERO understanding of how patent system works in the real world write all kinds of nonsense replies to any posts about patents approximately seven seconds after the article is posted.
Note that your having worked through the system by applying for and/or receiving a BS junkscience patent is not evidence of any understanding but simply an indictment of the system that let you get that far.
I thought they had a point about the constitution when they talked about the change of “inventor” to “filer.” Also, while most applications are published, I don’t think that’s true for small companies and individuals, who are less likely to seek foreign patents and thus will likely exercise their option to keep the application secret. And while this is an oversimplification, patent reform is basically big pharma (GOP/opposed) vs. silicon valley (companies sued on software and method patents), in a way it makes sense. Definitely it’s harder for the PTO to search prior art and so some of the proposed reforms (public input, post-grant review) make sense.
Mike's nonsense
What. The hell….
“angry dude,” perhaps your anger is getting in the way of your brain. You don’t back up your argument, choosing instead to write “Ha-ha-har-har-har….” and advise to “watch the money.” What does this even mean?
Yes, when politicians vote as corporations wish, there is indeed something wrong. And that is what many of the anti-patent reform platform wants.
Maybe you mean the Constitution is a relic and no one cares to pay attention to it? But by arguing against articles such as this, you seem to say that’s a good thing? I don’t get you at all.
Lots of BS
There is plenty of BS on both sides of the patent reform effort. One of the major reforms needed regards the time scale. Once upon a time it took time to design and build the machine tools necessary to bring a patented item to market and the marketed item was made to last decades. Back then, 17 years of protection made a certain amount of sense.
Now a production line for many items can be re-tooled in a matter of a few days and the items produced are doing good to last a year before a fad runs out or a better design comes along. Years and years of protection makes no sense at all.
Drugs may be an exception, but software? Even if software patents are allowed to stand, most programming languages don’t even last as long as the patent. Five years may be too long for a software patent. Things change faster now and the law needs to recognize that fact. Many software companies can’t stay afloat long enough for their first patent to expire. Why should the patent continue to be a thorn in everybody’s side?
Mike, typo here
the Wright Broters’ patents
Ad is by MRI Inventor
Once again Mike Masnick is shooting from the hip and removing all doubt. Tell me Mike, are you clueless as to who wrote that ad?
It was none other than the inventor of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Raymond Damadian. He is the father of the whole MRI industry and the founder of FONAR. Dr. Damadian is an inductee of the Inventors Hall of Fame and a recipient of many other significant awards.
The founders saw fit to explicitly define patent and copyrights as a property right!
You do write well Mike, which makes it a terrible shame that you were shorted in terms of analytical capabilities much as happens with idiot savants.
Tell me Mike, have you ever had an original thought? I doubt it. I think that you and your business are another parasitic operation, one kissing up to other parasites like the members of the Coalition for Patent fairness and PIRACY. I think it is probable that your client list reads like a Who’s Who of the patent piracy coalition.
Returning to the issue of Dr. Damadian. His life work has resulted in a stream of important inventions which have saved countless lives and created jobs and tax base. He employees many hundreds of people directly and the industry he created employs hundreds of thousands of people. Meanwhile, what has your miserable existence done for the collective good of society?
Ronald J. Riley,
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Re: Ad is by MRI Inventor
Once again Mike Masnick is shooting from the hip and removing all doubt. Tell me Mike, are you clueless as to who wrote that ad?
Once again, Ronald Riley sinks to personal attacks rather than substance.
Ronald, if you read the links, it’s quite clear we know who wrote the ad. I’m not sure why you would suggest otherwise. It doesn’t change the fact that the ad is wrong.
It was none other than the inventor of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Raymond Damadian. He is the father of the whole MRI industry and the founder of FONAR. Dr. Damadian is an inductee of the Inventors Hall of Fame and a recipient of many other significant awards.
Please, let’s be accurate. Dr. Damadian is the *disputed* and highly controversial inventor of MRI — and many would point out that his contributions weren’t the important part of what made MRI’s successful.
The founders saw fit to explicitly define patent and copyrights as a property right!
This is a fabrication — and if you follow the links or read the history, you would know that is untrue. The founders made it quite clear that patents and copyrights were monopolies — only to be granted in special circumstances. They were not property rights and were quite different from property rights. I’m not sure why you would lie about something so easily proven.
Tell me Mike, have you ever had an original thought?
Yeah, I’ve built a successful business and a successful website on totally unoriginal thoughts. You do realize that the service we offer has been hailed for its extremely unique method of helping companies get insight? You do realize that companies are paying us a lot of money because they know they cannot get this type of value elsewhere?
Yet, because you dislike it when I point out false statements made by you, I’m unoriginal? How convincing!
I think that you and your business are another parasitic operation
If you are going to make accusations like that, you might want to back it up with some substance. Since you cannot, I’ll simply assume that, as per usual, Ronald Riley resorts to insults when he has nothing substantive to say. If you can actually point out how we’re “unoriginal” or “parasitic” than I can respond. If you are just going to call me names, it makes you look like you have no argument.
Which is it?
Returning to the issue of Dr. Damadian. His life work has resulted in a stream of important inventions which have saved countless lives and created jobs and tax base
I don’t care if it was written by Einstein — if he said incorrect statements, they’d still be wrong. I’m not sure what his work (and you paint it in much nicer pictures than many others) has to do with the fact that he’s simply wrong about patent law.
Ronald, I’m not sure why you continue to attack me personally or make tangential points. What Dr. Damadian has done for society has nothing to do with the fact that he’s wrong about patent reform — as are you.
Meanwhile, what has your miserable existence done for the collective good of society?
Miserable existence? That’s very professional.
Just as Dr. Damian has done, I have helped create jobs. I employ a staff of people and our service helps many experts around the world make a living. The insight and analysis we have provided companies has helped many companies grow and thrive, creating billions in revenue and new job opportunities. I’m not sure why that makes the slightest difference though. The fact is, it’s meaningless when it comes to this issue.
I will note, once again, that you didn’t refute a *single* point in my post (which is unfortunately typical of your posts). If you want to debate me on the points, I’d appreciate it. If you want to just insult me and bring up tangential, totally unrelated points, I’d imagine you’d be saving both of us a lot of time if you just did it elsewhere.
Wright Bros
The statement that the Wright brother’s “patents almost destroyed the US airplane industry” is nonsensical. If it hadn’t been for the Wright brothers, there would have been no US airplane industry. You would still be taking a stage coach to visit your in-laws in Fairbanks. This argument is no more rational than any of the others large companies (who it appears you work for) use as an excuse for gutting our patent system. The biggest farce is you parading as a journalist.
Steve
Re: Wright Bros
The statement that the Wright brother’s “patents almost destroyed the US airplane industry” is nonsensical. If it hadn’t been for the Wright brothers, there would have been no US airplane industry.
Yeah, because no one else ever would have figured out how to fly? Give me a break. Plus, learn your history about the Wright’s patents and how they DID almost destroy the US aviation industry.
Re: Wright Bros
So according to you…if the Wright Brothers hadn’t invented the airplane when they did:
A) No one would have invented the airplane.
B) No one would have invented the car.
Dr. Damadian has a place in history.
Mike Masnick said “Please, let’s be accurate. Dr. Damadian is the *disputed* and highly controversial inventor of MRI — and many would point out that his contributions weren’t the important part of what made MRI successful.”
What drivel, shortly after any inventor produces something of value shysters come out trying to rationalize taking some or all the money and glory. It is a fact that the people you refer to are back biting academics who couldn’t have offered improvements if not for Dr. Damadian’s producing the original invention. You just do not seem to comprehend that someone has to produce the invention before ANYONE can move on commercialization.
Riley said “Tell me Mike, have you ever had an original thought?” to which Mike replies “Yeah, I’ve built a successful business and a successful website on totally unoriginal thoughts.” and goes on to say “Just as Dr. Damian has done, I have helped create jobs. I employ a staff of people and our service helps many experts around the world make a living.
Mike, where do you get off comparing your business and your work on behalf of large companies with the work of an inventor like Dr. Damadian. That is absurd!
Dr. Damadian has increased peoples life spans, alleviated suffering, and actually created new wealth. In the end ALL your business does is siphon off existing wealth. Dr. Damadian’s inventions will be the subject of historical note, and while you are no doubt making a handsome living doing the bidding of big business, when your life is done you will be quickly forgotten. That is reality, so wake up.
Mike Masnick says: “Ronald, I’m not sure why you continue to attack me personally ” and “I will note, once again, that you didn’t refute a *single* point in my post (which is unfortunately typical of your posts). If you want to debate me on the points, I’d appreciate it. If you want to just insult me and bring up tangential, totally unrelated points, I’d imagine you’d be saving both of us a lot of time if you just did it elsewhere.”
Almost every inventor who produces something of value faces a multitude of lying, cheating, and thieving companies or individuals who rationalize that they should be able to profit from the inventor’s work without compensating the inventor. If you are as hot shot as you like tell us you know that there are far more parasites than there are companies who actually produce something unique.
Patent pirating companies abuse inventors over many years, often spanning a decade or more. They steal billions of dollars from inventors, and to top it all off they conduct public relations campaigns painting those they have abused as bad players. So why are you surprised that inventors find the drivel you write about these topics personally offensive and respond accordingly?
The reason that you draw the ire of inventors is that you constantly rationalize why parasites should have free reign. That is probably because you are yourself one of those parasites, or even worse just a stooge for parasitic clients.
Ronald J. Riley,
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.PatentPolicy.org – RRiley at PatentPolicy.org
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Re: Dr. Damadian has a place in history.
It is a fact that the people you refer to are back biting academics who couldn’t have offered improvements if not for Dr. Damadian’s producing the original invention.
Ronald, you make me laugh sometimes. I like how it’s a “fact” that someone is “backbiting.”
You might want to learn how to argue convincingly, because right now, you’re not doing a very good job of it. What is a fact is that people do not all agree on the value of Dr. Damadian’s contribution. I wasn’t saying that his contribution wasn’t important. It very well may have been. I simply was pointing out that there is some dispute over that fact — contrary to the way you painted the picture.
Again, I will note that the rest of your post does not respond to a single point about the patent system and why it’s problematic. Instead, it simply repeats personal attacks against me and this bizarre and incorrect claim that I am somehow working for large companies in this discussion.
My company works for both large and small companies. In fact, the majority of our business is with small companies, not large ones — and what we do for them has NOTHING to do with public advocacy. In fact, some of the companies who support your position are our clients. So you can keep trying to paint us with that brush, but it doesn’t stick because it’s not true. What we do for them is simply advise them on their strategies — and we do not do any work advising on patents.
It is also both false and defamatory to claim that we merely “siphon off existing wealth.” I’d suggest that you might want to learn a little bit about economics before you make ridiculous claims. We help companies *increase* the size of the pie by helping them to better provide solutions to markets — just like you claim Dr. Damadian does. So, to claim that we somehow siphon off wealth is both wrong and defamatory.
If you are as hot shot as you like tell us you know that there are far more parasites than there are companies who actually produce something unique.
Ronald, I’ve explained this to you repeatedly, and I’m not sure why you refuse to respond (oh wait, I know… because you can’t answer it.) The US patent system is not about getting people to produce something *unique*. It’s about creating incentives for *progress*. Progress and uniqueness are not the same thing.
So why are you surprised that inventors find the drivel you write about these topics personally offensive and respond accordingly?
You are wrong if you think inventors are offended. A small group, goaded on by you, and without an understanding of economics or the purpose of the patent system come here and attack me personally — yet they never respond to the points that I’ve raised, the stacks and stacks of research supporting my position or the Nobel prize winning economists who say the same things I do.
That is probably because you are yourself one of those parasites, or even worse just a stooge for parasitic clients.
Again, a false and defamatory statement. If you don’t have proof, please take it back. If you do have proof, I’d appreciate you actually showing it. Since you do not (because we are not “parasites” or “stooges for parasites”), I would again ask you to refrain from making such false statements and to admit that you were in error.
Re: Dr. Damadian has a place in history.
The reason that you draw the ire of inventors is that you constantly rationalize why parasites should have free reign. That is probably because you are yourself one of those parasites, or even worse just a stooge for parasitic clients.
One more point on this. What I find most amusing in these debates, is that when I write about almost *every* other topic on this site, I’m accused of hating big companies and working against their interests. When I write about the recording industry or telecom or even software, people accuse me of wanting to harm the very same big companies that you now accuse me of shilling for.
How can I possibly be shilling for these companies if so much of what I write apparently goes against their interests?
Someone once told me that if both sides in a fight are yelling at you for supporting the other side, you’re probably doing something right.
abuse of inventors is nothing new
Well said, Ronald.
There is one very old quote which comes to mind:
“Jealousy and Envy deny the merit or the novelty of your invention; but Vanity, when the novelty and merit are established, claims it for its own… One would not therefore, of all faculties, or qualities of the mind, wish for a friend, or a child, that he should have that of invention. For his attempts to benefit mankind in that way, however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse.”
-Ben Franklin, 1755
Nothing has really changed in 250 years…
Well, if US Congress wants to do away with American inventions and American inventors, they have a good start already…
But the long-term consequences for this great country will be just horrible…
Re: abuse of inventors is nothing new
“Jealousy and Envy deny the merit or the novelty of your invention; but Vanity, when the novelty and merit are established, claims it for its own… One would not therefore, of all faculties, or qualities of the mind, wish for a friend, or a child, that he should have that of invention. For his attempts to benefit mankind in that way, however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse.”
-Ben Franklin, 1755
Angry Dude, if you’re going to quote Ben Franklin on patents, you should at least include the following:
“Thomas was so pleas’d with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin’d it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.”
You can read it here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/148
Re: abuse of inventors is nothing new
Well, if US Congress wants to do away with American inventions and American inventors, they have a good start already…
But the long-term consequences for this great country will be just horrible…
Again, I’m not sure why you ignore the history here or if you just have a blind spot to reality… but countries that have done away with patent systems have not suffered a decrease in invention. In many cases, they’ve actually seen an increase. Alternatively, when countries that have gone without a patent system implement one, they do not see a corresponding increase in invention.
There’s historical evidence on this. I’m not sure why you pretend it doesn’t exist.
What amuses me most about both angry dude and Ronald is that any time we’ve asked them to present a single shred of evidence to counter our own, they simply respond with insults.
It’s amusing, but not particularly fulfilling.
Shilling for different clients?
“How can I possibly be shilling for these companies if so much of what I write apparently goes against their interests?”
Maybe you have different clients?
Re: Shilling for different clients?
Ronald,
If you look at what our business is, it has absolutely nothing to do with advocacy. In fact, it’s the opposite. We tell them what they should be doing — we do not do anything publicly on their behalf.
Once again, I ask you to take back your false accusations towards me.
Re: Re: Shilling for different clients?
Like I told you before, dude: follow the money trail, always follow the money trail when you want to get to the bottom of things…
All we need to see is where your money comes from…
This is as simple as that..
Talking about honest journalism…
Does it even exist nowadays ?
Re: Re: Re: Shilling for different clients?
Like I told you before, dude: follow the money trail, always follow the money trail when you want to get to the bottom of things…
You amaze me sometimes. As I pointed out, we quite often say stuff that our clients completely disagree with us on. That’s because we’re not hired to do any kind of public advocacy. In fact, we’re often hired to tell companies what they *don’t* want to hear.
Furthermore, we do not currently do ANY work having to do with patents. There’s no money to follow because there’s no money there.
In fact, could you please point to a client whose position on patents we agree with? I’d love to see it, because I’ve yet to find a single one of our clients who agree with our position on patents.
Hell, just look at the list of companies that support patent reform. Most of them are companies we’ve publicly trashed — especially over patent issues.
Once again, I’d ask that you apologize for your false accusations.
You could hit them a lot harder than that...
You could hit them a lot harder than that, for the intellectual dishonesty in that ad.
Never mind what the Constitution says about the purpose of the patent system — even if the expressed purpose of the patent system were solely to enrich monopolists at the expense of the public, the law would *still* be entirely constitutional. The Article in question merely says “Congress shall have the power to…[do XYZ]”, not “Congress shall [do XYZ]”. There is no requirement in the Constitution that we have either patent or copyright laws. Congress is merely entitled to make such laws if it deems them wise; it is also entitled to modify or repeal them, if it deems that wise.
The ad’s talk of “shredding the Constitution” is beyond being a lie, it is downright hallucinogenic.
-Karl Fogel