“Generally speaking, you don’t see companies spend $1.1 billion on a bunch of patents, unless they’re planning something big.” – god mike, some days you are just denser than others. did you check to see if any of those patents aren’t already licensed and generating income? Example, if one of the patents generates 100 million a year and has a 15 year lifespan, then this is a darn good investment. you make it sound as if they have purchased a bunch of worthless air that can only be converted into value by lawyers. posts like this prove that you have no real business experience (at least none that you remember).

They both have a million dollars capitol, InventCO hires engineers, technicians, and designers and they spend their million dollars on developing a new ‘thing’, called the Gruntmaster 2000.

It’s a great product and took a million dollars and alot of time to develop, it’s a new method of doing something, so it able to be patented.

Great for InventCO, they have contributed to the total population knowledge base, and increased the ability for people to do things they were not able to do before.

LeachCO, did nothing, they employed no engineers, no designers, no inventers, nothing.

They just put their million in the bank, and collected interest while waiting for InventCO to create a nice product.

LeachCo then buys, serial number 00000001 of the InventCO Gruntmaster 2000, pulls it appart and copies it.

Remember LeachCO still have 1 million Dollars in the bank and InventCO has very little money but a great product.

LeachCO copies the Gruntmaster 2000 invented by InventCO, and with the million dollars they still have spend that money on advertising, and promotion and distribution.

So what has LeachCO contributed to the advancement of technology ?

All LeachCO has done is deliver a product to customers for a lower price, because they did not have to spend time or money developing that product.

This is clearly an unfair practice, and that is what patent law, and copyright law is designed, (and does) work to stop.

If you want to make a profit on someone elses hard work, perhaps it would be better to make a profit on you’re own hard work.

It’s all about, what is morally right, regardless of the law, (which agrees it’s also illegal and immoral), it’s just “NOT RIGHT”, to take someone elses work and use that for you’re own gains.

And if you cant understand that life fundamental then that in itself is a major problem.

Patents and copyright are designed to protect companies like InventCO who prefer to spend their time and money inventing things, for fame and profit. As opposed to LeachCO that invents nothing, but uses the efforts of others to rip them off of their efforts and profit from their work.

Monopoloies, are not illegal, for one. Monopolies are common, and can occur when one company produces something no one else creates, or what they produce is of a quality or popularity that ensures continued use.

Microsoft is not a monopoly, from both a consumer and supplier perspective, MS is not a monopoly by definition.

Patents and copyright, is a form of monopoly on YOU’RE INVENTION or Creation, after all no one else can ever intent or create that thing and say it’s the first time it’s been done.

Therefore, if you have an idea, in you’re brain, it HAS to be a monopoly, copyright and patent gives you the ability to make that idea public, and retain it as you’re idea.
After all it IS you’re idea, you have every right to it.

If patents and copyright did not exist, and you have that great idea, you would not be able to make that idea public for risk of someone else using that idea.

There are thousands upon thousands of examples of peoples inventions, ideas, or discoveries have been taken by someone else and used to great profit by that person.

I dont know of too many examples of the reverse, where once something has patent or copyright protection that that has occured.

But again, many thousands of historical and present day examples where inventions or discoveries have been lost to others who did not invent it, because there was not protection in place for that idea.

Patents give that protection, and gives the ability to put that information into the public domain, for advancement of further development.

You cannot use the invention directly, but you can improve, innovate and build upon that invention to create you’re own independent invention.

You dont have to invent steel every time you want to invent a new type of car engine.

You dont have to invent a programming language every time you want to write some software.
You dont have to invent printed circuit boards every time you envent a new circuit, nor do you have to invent new transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors etc.

They have all been invented and patented, does not stop you from using them for you’re own inventions or innovations.

So where does patents or copyright harm the progress of technology, and would InventCO even bother to spend their million on R&D if they knew that LeachCO was waiting to take their invention and make $100 million dollars profit on the backs of InventCO, who does not have the money left to either fight LeachCO or to market and promote their own product.

Mike, I guessing you would tend to want to be the CEO of LeachCO, and just try not to think about all the engineers and designers you dont employ and that you will put out of work because you want the product of their labour without having to pay for it. And you dont mind putting them out of a job, so you can pay you’re google advertising bill, and lawyers to keep “the trolls” off you back..

Or would you rather be CEO of InventCO, working to build a better world, and put money in the pockets of engineers, not some advertising agent ?