Ronald J Riley 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (786)
-
On the post: Will Nicholas Negroponte Ever Understand That Competition Isn't About Killing OLPC?
-
On the post: Will Nicholas Negroponte Ever Understand That Competition Isn't About Killing OLPC?
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2008 @ 01:18pmIf Only OLPC Had Patents
Mike, I am sure that you personally and all the big companies who used and abused Nicholas Negroponte and One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) efforts to create affordable notebook computers are glad that he and his colleagues blazed the trail for parasitic companies.
Mr. Negroponte has learned a lesson which every inventor understands, and that lesson is that in the absence of patents that transnational sharks will lie, cheat, and steal other's work. No patents equals no recourse!
Now if Mr. Negroponte had used patents he could be suing these companies and funded his vision with the proceeds. As it is he and his vision will expire with a whimper. Transnational corporate public relations will flood media with their propaganda and in a mater of years he and his efforts will be mostly forgotten.
Now if he had obtained patent protection and had the gall to hold these companies accountable for their predatory conduct they would be using their public relations people and all the shills and corporate stooges who operate on their behalf to paint Mr. Nicholas Negroponte as one of those mythical and vicious patent trolls. This is what they and YOU have been doing with the inventor community.
The reality is that many of the companies who have shamelessly high jacked both the vision and the business using some truly despicable tactics of OLPC are members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness (better known as the Piracy Coalition). Their goals are nothing less than making the patent system a kings sport and ensuring that all of us are serfs obediently feeding their coffers.
So tell me Mike, whose trough are you feeding from, or is the problem ignorance and having one's head stuck so far up where the daylight doesn't shine that you will never be capable of sorting out right from wrong?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Patent Gridlock Harming The Ability To Create Lifesaving Cures
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2008 @ 07:06amCritical Thinking Skills Lacking
"But, the more you understand the economics of innovation and growth"
The problem Mike Masnick is that you only think you understand the economics of innovation. There is a huge difference between being a copycat, a parasite on inventors and actually being an inventor.
Egos being what they are no one wants to admit that they average or worse. It is clear from your writings Mike that you have a very large ego. We see lots of large egos in the inventor community and I most certainly see lots of large political egos. Both inventors and politicians probably have some justification of their egos. But Mike, I just do not see any justification for your ego.
You most certainly write well but you your critical thinking skills are dismal. Perhaps the reason of your constant attacks on inventors is a deep seated resentment that you are personally incapable of doing what they do. Perhaps another component is greed, that you personally resent the possibility that one of those inventors will morph into a mythical troll and kick the tar out of you if they catch you trying to profit from their inventions without paying them for their creativity.
And while you might resent those who can actually invent it is a fact that if you succeed in socializing their inventiveness they will have no incentive to continue in invent. The result would be a staggering drop in humanity's collective technological advancement. While we would continue to small incremental improvements of the nature which large companies produce the big breakthroughs, the earth shaking disruptive technologies would pretty much stop. America's economic engine would also stall and our collective economic prospects would dim at an even faster rate then they are now.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Admitted Patent Troll Finds The Phrase 'Shell Entity' Offensive
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2008 @ 06:14amPiracy Coalition
Mike, reasonable people might think that you are a shill for those who pirate other's patent properties.
There is a reason that so many people are spewing patent troll nonsense. The reason is that the Piracy Coalition has been spending several hundred million dollars a year to create the myth of their being waylaid by trolls.
The reality is much different. Every inventor thinks that their invention is the most beautiful baby. They promptly tell all who will listen about their baby. One out of ten of the companies who look at the invention will introduce an infringing product about a year later. The inventor then go back to them seeking a license deal and after a year or two of getting jerked around the inventor finds themselves a patent enforcement entity and proceeds to adjust the patent pirate's attitude.
That is when the patent pirating entity's PR machine goes into overdrive claiming that they are being abused by a vicious troll.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Many large companies do listen, but with larceny in their hearts. Trying to do business with these companies is much like -
On the post: Blogging vs. Journalism Question A Key Point In Compelling The Troll Tracker To Testify
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 13 May, 2008 @ 04:11pmRe: Re: Bounty is reasonable
1) The only treat against Troll Tracker was that his ass was going to be sued.
2) I agree that Cisco will sacrifice Rick Frenkel when they can do so quietly.
3) The difference between Rick Frenkel and I is that I am not an attorney with a client speaking to an open case.
4) Those who are too spineless to sign their names and too stupid to avoid libel, starting with Rick Frenkel are the least credible.
5) TechDIRT is only marginally more credible than Slashdot. Both seem to be mostly made up of clueless sheep being manipulated by large transnational corporations.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Blogging vs. Journalism Question A Key Point In Compelling The Troll Tracker To Testify
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 13 May, 2008 @ 05:23amRe: Guilty until proven innocent
Yep, he gets his day in court, opps make that days. We all hope to see justice served. Heaven help both Cisco and Rick Frenkel if they get all the justice which they have earned.
I think that members of the Coalition for Patent fairness will probably be building another factory in China or some other low wage country to produce personal lube. They are going to need very large qualities of the product as they continue to be on the receiving end of JUSTICE.
Mike Masnick, while the Piracy Coalition and their stooges were predicting passage of Patent Deform I was telling you that it was going down in flames. And it did. One side was spending a great deal of time predicting an easy win while the other was quietly building coalitions. They lost, we won.
They think they are going to take another crack at passing the crap next year. We have other aces up our sleeves and they will get their asses kicked again.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Blogging vs. Journalism Question A Key Point In Compelling The Troll Tracker To Testify
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 12 May, 2008 @ 05:12pmBounty is reasonable
The sum total of Rick Frenkel's remarks as Troll Tracker made it clear that he was closely tied to the Piracy Coalition. If there was any doubt as to the bounty being reasonable it evaporated as soon as we found out that he was in an UPPER management position at Cisco. Cisco is infamous in the inventor community for their large intellectual property appetite and equally for their entitlement mentality.
I think that Cisco is a founding member of the Piracy Coalition because they have incurred huge liabilities over unauthorized use of other's intellectual property.
I believe that people who value jobs and tax based which inventor's work creates should boycott use of all Cisco products.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Blogging vs. Journalism Question A Key Point In Compelling The Troll Tracker To Testify
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 12 May, 2008 @ 04:58pmRe: from the � it takes one to know one department�
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080509/0305071072.shtml
Dare I express an opinion that Rick Frenkel is a Cisco stooge/shill and that I believe that they knew exactly what he was doing?
We have already identified who the handlers are of a number of bloggers who carry Coalition for Patent fairness water(better known as the Piracy Coalition). At some point we may start pitching stories to media exposing some of the connections between some very bad corporate players and those they have retained.
Tournalists tend to take a dim view of public relations people, especially when those people are using claims of being journalists to cover the real nature of their activities.
Rick Frenkel made some telling and ill considered remarks about the court. I am certain that the court will view those remarks as being made on behalf of Cisco and I am equally certain that the court will dole out appropriate justice to both Cisco and Rick Frenkel for their collective outragious conduct.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: The Case For And Against Software And Business Model Patents
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2008 @ 05:52pmExpression v. Function
Mike, you constantly amaze me with your irrational thought processes. You have a religion which is anti-patent, just as many are anti-evolution.
I have known many really sharp people who can apply analytical reasoning skills in the sciences while ignoring those abilities when it comes to their religion. They compartmentalize, kind of like a split personality.
Copyright is useful for protecting one's specific expression. But it does nothing if someone sits down and recodes a piece of software in a different language. The recoded software would have the same function but the code itself would generally look much different.
A patent covers function. So a patent would protect from the kind of copying I just described.
The problem with most software people today is that they recode things all the time and want to claim that they are creative. In a way they are, creative at rationalizing theft form others.
We all know that practitioner's abilities in any profession will follow the Bell Curve. Some will be incompetent (like your grasp of the invention process), the majority will be just average, and a few will be exceptional. Of course no one wants to think of themselves and their work as being average.
But we do know that the reason the software crowd is so anti-intellectual property is that most of them know that they do not have what it takes to produce an honest o goodness invention.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: H-1Bs Run Out Almost Immediately Yet Again
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2008 @ 03:00amRe: Re: Strange Coincidence
Sorry Mike, but I do not make money off my positions. In fact I spend my own money, several million dollars worth trying to protect the patent system and our great country from greedy and unethical business interests and their stooges.
In my opinion at best you spout off about issues which you are totally ignorant about and at worst you might be a stooge/shill for those companies. In the end it does not matter which because you are constantly promoting an agenda which would destroy our patent system and with it our only effective competitive advantage against low wage competition.
One last point, The Coalition for Patent fairness & PIRACY, otherwise known as the Piracy Coalition has been painting a rosy picture of passage of the Patent Deform bill. Yesterday they had two major defections. The bill is going down in flames just as I have been predicting.
One of the reasons it is in trouble is inventors are getting ready to give proponents of the bill a political hot foot right where it will cause them the greatest damage.
See: www.Docs.PIAUSA.org/PIAUSA/
We are ready to run additional ads targeting specific legislators in their home states :)
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: H-1Bs Run Out Almost Immediately Yet Again
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2008 @ 03:36amStrange Coincidence
"by Anonymous Coward on Apr 9th, 2008 @ 12:38am
Why is the tech industry so special? In every other industry, a lack of skilled workers results in companies paying HIGHER SALARIES to draw those skilled workers in. That causes people to flood schools seeking education for those areas so that they can graduate and fill the industry needs, eventually resulting in a somewhat lower salary overall, because the demand and supply are more even. THAT is capitalism. THAT is how it has always been."
Anonymous has hit the issue dead on. Isn't it amazing how Mike Masnick consistently is pushing big tech's agenda, patent deform & H1B? A really strange coincidence.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Rather Than Giving Banks A Patent Exemption, Why Not Fix The Patent System?
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2008 @ 06:56pmMike: More Uninformed Drivel
Mike Masnick said: “Actually, I used common sense, but, if you want to get pedantic about things, go ahead.”
When it comes to the patent system you show little common sense or understanding of how the process actually works.
Also, claiming that an invention is obvious based on a superficial look as you have done with the Data Treasury patents is foolish. I suggest that if you are going to render opinions on these issues that you become informed first. As it stands your comments bring to mind the saying about opening one’s mouth and removing all doubt.
Data Treasury’s patents have already been litigated and infringing banks have been handed their heads. One of the reasons for staggering liabilities is the banking industry’s outrageous conduct in the case.
The significance of Data Treasury’s inventions is the complete process, especially the security aspects.
I have been watching the Data Treasury case for some time and this case demonstrates that the banking industry is collectively a slimy bunch ranking right next to drug lords in their morals. They are willing to destroy what has made America the land of opportunity to facilitate their theft of at least ten billion dollars from Data Treasury or if they succeed in their legislative efforts from all taxpayers.
Where do new jobs and prosperity come from? The answer is American ingenuity which is no less a natural resource than land and minerals. In fact, the only thing standing between our current standard of living and a precipitous drop is American inventiveness.
Has it occurred to anyone that banks are being sued because they have a big appetite for other's patent property and big egos which get in the way of acquiring the rights to the patent properties they need to succeed in the market?
Have you considered that banks are sued after they have refused a legitimate offer for a license?
Or have you considered that the banking industry membership in the Coalition for Patent fairness and PIRACY, aka. the Piracy Coalition is a good indication that birds of a feather do flock together?
Some companies start as inventors, and some start as parasites on those who have invented. Eventually they end up alike, one group never being inventive and the second losing the ability to invent as they age. Both will try to substitute quantity in patent filing for the quality of inventions they are incapable of producing. It does not work.
All Piracy Coalition members fit one of these profiles. Tech companies who are past their prime, insurance and banking collectively have no shame!
What they very good at producing is innovating media hype which obfuscates the reality of their existence. Their multi-million dollar “troll” campaign is a perfect example of this. They paint their victims as “trolls” while the courts are finding their conduct so egregious that they are handing down staggering judgments which are generally being upheld by higher courts. This is what happens to those who are caught lying, cheating, and stealing and no amount of public relations painting their victims as evil “trolls” can change the facts of these cases.
Personally I think that it is a shame that Piracy Coalition members have failed to learn the lesson that inventors and the courts are teaching. It is all about conducting one’s business in an ethical manner!
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Patent Office Rejects Blackboard E-Learning Patent One Month After It Wins Lawsuit
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2008 @ 03:21amThe “Little Person Syndrome”
“Wow, your BS is amazing. Where do you come up with this crap ?”
My BS is based on in depth knowledge of how the patent system works from the perspective of independent inventors. It is unfortunate that inventors must suffer at the hands of intellectual property thieves and ignorant fools. It is also a shame that TechDIRT seems to have a disproportionate share of the latter and that the problem is driven from the top down.
Members of TechDIRT remind me of people on the public dole who come to have an entitlement mentality. Except in this case we have a bunch of people who are always late to the inventing party who think they should be able to take the fruits of other’s creativity and who rationalize that they are just as creative as the person who was there first. Personally I think it is a shame that many TechDIRT members wallow in self pity when they should be striving to become the FIRST to invent.
I have long referred to this affliction as the “Little Person Syndrome”. Not physically little, just mentally too lazy to invest the effort to succeed and temperamentally prone to resent those who are willing to actually accomplish something.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Creative Labs Stops Guy From Making Its Technology Work Better
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2008 @ 06:08pmTeckDIRT does not understand real innovation!
"This seems like yet another case of IP laws being used to hold back innovation, rather than encourage it."
Michael Masnick, you sound just like Piracy Coalition members who love to talk about innovation. The problem is that what they describe as innovation has nothing to do with actual invention.
Most certainly I can agree that Creative has committed a public relations blunder. But to characterize this as an example of intellectual property law run amok only serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance of both law and the essence of invention.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Patent Office Rejects Blackboard E-Learning Patent One Month After It Wins Lawsuit
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2008 @ 05:52pmIgnorance is no excuse
Michael Masnick, when are you going to invest the effort to understand patent issues?
All it takes is one infringed claim for D2L to be hung. And the reality is that the USPTO routinely lobs hot cases into the appeals system to avoid being left in the hot seat. This does not mean that the patent is invalid and there is a 90% chance that all or part of the patent will be upheld.
Desire to Learn (D2L) is in my opinion another example of a Canadian company pirating American patent properties. They are taking jobs, tax base, and prosperity which belong to our people.
They remind me of a couple of other Canadian companies, namely RIM and Bodog, both of who have been caught with their sticky fingers in American company's patent cookie jars. Both have had those sticky fingers smashed by the courts.
That said, there are many legitimate Canadian companies who are true innovators and who do profit from America's patent system, a system which is widely recognized as the best in the world.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: IBM Banned From Federal Contracts; No One Saying Why
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2008 @ 05:32pmIBM is a joke today.
IBM is a company who let the Japanese take the mainframe market from them and Microsoft take the operating system market. The only reason that IBM still exists today is their patent portfolio. IBM is a husk of its former self and a joke.
IBM files hordes of incremental mostly insignificant patents and their conduct is one of the reasons that the patent system is burdened. They sense that their days are numbered, and that eventually they will expire with a whimper.
They have a vision for a patent system which is a king's sport, where only the privileged vested interests can play.
There are two major big business camps promoting reformation of the patent system.
One group simply wants to eviscerate the system to mitigate the consequences of their patent pirating conduct. This group was initially formed by washed up tech companies who lost their ability to produce significant inventions decades ago and a few parasitic companies who never were innovators, rather they are shrewd predators on innovators. They were then joined by the insurance and banking industries, of which one group is only innovative at denying claims and the second group's claim to fame is inventing ever more and larger fees. This group calls themselves the Coalition for Patent Fairness, but are better known as the Coalition for Patent Piracy. Their members have a variety of deficiencies such as being caught cooking their books, putting their customers at risk of being maimed or killed with defective products, committing fraud on the court in litigations over their patent piracy, and various other sins.
The second group are much older companies. They tend to value their patents but would very much like to reign in pesky inventors who nip at their heels. They are also hot on HARMazation of America's patent system, a process which dumbs down the greatest patent system in the world for those company's benefit. This group is known as the 21st Century Patent Coalition. While they are marginally better than the Coalition for Patent Piracy they are also very short term gain oriented businesses.
Both groups prey on the real inventors of our country. Both are prone to abuse the process of law in a bid to bankrupt inventors. Both ship the fruits of American ingenuity to developing countries. Both groups routinely indenture inventors in those countries and will dispose of their empty husks just as they have done to our inventors when they find a slightly better deal elsewhere.
Independent inventors have community ties and when they prosper so do their communities. But when the inventors have their spirits killed by disreputable and predatory large companies, the community suffers a much greater loss than the inventor.
Beware, for these companies are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into "reforming" our patent system to be more friendly to them and much less friendly to upstart startup companies. They know that this is a bargain if it facilitates their appropriation of billions of dollars. It is a fact that many of the companies promoting various special interest "reforms" of the patent system have been caught red handed cheating, lying, and thieving - and they are being held accountable for their poor conduct. Accountability is what drives their whining about bigger than live mythical trolls.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Do Patent Lawyers Really Want To Put Limits On The Rocket Docket Of East Texas?
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2008 @ 05:26pmAIPLA represents big company interests.
Mike, like you there is not much I find I agree with AIPLA with.
AIPLA represents the interests of large older companies who want to preserve the value of their portfolios but who are also part of the HARMonization crowd who want to turn the patent system into a king’s sport. They would not mind disadvantaging upstart startup companies and individual inventors as long as doing so does not devalue their patents. The patent law faction which AIPLA is most closely affiliated with is the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform.
Both the 21st Century group and the Coalition for Patent fairness & PIRACY would like to be able to take small entities intellectual property. But the 21st Century group values their own intellectual property while the Piracy Coalition shares your view that they would be better off without patents.
The reason that both groups do not like the Marshal TX court is that it has rigid rules which prevent the kinds of abuse of the process of law which has stood large corporate patent pirates in goo stead over the years. The solution to the issue of the Eastern Texas court being so popular is for other courts to adopt similar rules.
Big companies can afford long court delays. Small companies need swift justice in order to survive. Big companies have long been abusing legal delays and they hate Marshal, TX because the court rejects this kind of abuse. These companies are being handed their heads based on the courts’ findings that they are Patent Pirates, little more then common thieves.
Now perhaps Mike can explain how and why his view of the Marshal, TX court is almost exactly in tune with that of Piracy Coalition member companies ??
Please Mike, this time around do not start whining like these companies do when they are found to have been willfully stealing other’s patent properties :)
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Red Hat And The Power Of Infinite Goods
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2008 @ 06:21pmWho knows more about Harware and Software Design?
Mike Masnick said:
“Ronald, very simple question: have you ever written a line of software code?”
. a) Far more than you can imagine.
“Do you honestly believe that the USPTO is the sole arbiter of whether or not software is legitimate?”
. b) Mike, wrong question based on ignorance of the patent system. The USPTO is the arbiter of weather a software invention merits a patent.
Even if they are inventing they are not teaching others the invention and therefore have chosen to keep their work essentially secret, much as guilds used to jealously guard the secrets of their trade to exclude others from practicing the inventions. In many ways they are treating their knowledge as a trade secret.
You clearly have no clue how software works. I'm going to make a suggestion for your own good: you probably should keep your comments directed at non-software patents. You have enough trouble there. Once you touch on software, you show your complete ignorance very quickly.
. c) Mike, I bet I know far more about software that you do.
Denying inventors’ protection via patents is sure to lead to the same problems which society had when guilds kept knowledge secret.
Funny. You recognize that software patents are a recent thing? And prior to software patents, the software industry thrived? Yeah, funny how that worked...
. d) Yet the industry has thrived even more with patents.
Software, by its nature, is not a "trade secret."
. e) If you do not teach in detail then it is being used as a trade secret. I suggest that all of you get busy teaching exactly what you believe should be excluded from patent protection.
Now lets address the issue of programming and what I know about it.
Actually I started programming in seventh grade in the early nineteen-sixties on a GE timeshare system at what was then GMI and today is Kettering. The first language I learned was Algol. A year or two later I learned Fortran. Farily early in my professional career I was at the leading edge of applying microcomputers in industrial environments. In the 6800-6500 computing days I designed systems using multiple CPU's which shared memory map segments on alternate phases of the clock. In other words multi-core computing with no wait states! This was desirable because of problems with interrupt latency on real time systems.
In those days there were mainframe programmers who mostly stuck their noses up and refused to touch a microprocessor based system. So while I was an EE coming at the issues from the hardware side of things the reality was if you designed a microcomputer system you had to write your own code.
I have worked in scores of computer languages from raw binary in the early days, then assembler to high level. I probably worked with hundreds of dialects. And I mastered programmable logic controllers (used in automation), CNC and much more.
So I do understand both hardware and software, probably better then most people. Today the great majority of programmers are woefully ignorant of hardware, and because of this they are not equipped to understand the issues.
Read my lips, hardware and software solutions are often interchangeable. Inventions can be implemented with either approach. There is no rational reason that a hardware solution should be patentable while a software solution was not patentable. It would be economic suicide for America to give away all of the software related inventions so that a few very loud louts who claim that they are inventors while there is no proof that they ever invented anything. If you want to claim that you are an inventor then you must subject yourself to the peer review system which we call a patent. No patent equals no standing as an inventor.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Red Hat And The Power Of Infinite Goods
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2008 @ 06:14pmWho knows more about Harware and Software Design?
Mike Masnick said:
“Ronald, very simple question: have you ever written a line of software code?”
. a) Far more than you can imagine.
“Do you honestly believe that the USPTO is the sole arbiter of whether or not software is legitimate?”
. b) Mike, wrong question based on ignorance of the patent system. The USPTO is the arbiter of weather a software invention merits a patent.
Even if they are inventing they are not teaching others the invention and therefore have chosen to keep their work essentially secret, much as guilds used to jealously guard the secrets of their trade to exclude others from practicing the inventions. In many ways they are treating their knowledge as a trade secret.
You clearly have no clue how software works. I'm going to make a suggestion for your own good: you probably should keep your comments directed at non-software patents. You have enough trouble there. Once you touch on software, you show your complete ignorance very quickly.
. c) Mike, I bet I know far more about software that you do.
Denying inventors’ protection via patents is sure to lead to the same problems which society had when guilds kept knowledge secret.
Funny. You recognize that software patents are a recent thing? And prior to software patents, the software industry thrived? Yeah, funny how that worked...
. d) Yet the industry has thrived even more with patents.
Software, by its nature, is not a "trade secret."
. e) If you do not teach in detail then it is being used as a trade secret. I suggest that all of you get busy teaching exactly what you believe should be excluded from patent protection.
Now lets address the issue of programming and what I know about it.
Actually I started programming in seventh grade in the early nineteen-sixties on a GE timeshare system at what was then GMI and today is Kettering. The first language I learned was Algol. A year or two later I learned Fortran. Farily early in my professional career I was at the leading edge of applying microcomputers in industrial environments. In the 6800-6500 computing days I designed systems using multiple CPU's which shared memory map segments on alternate phases of the clock. In other words multi-core computing with no wait states! This was desirable because of problems with interrupt latency on real time systems.
In those days there were mainframe programmers who mostly stuck their noses up and refused to touch a microprocessor based system. So while I was an EE coming at the issues from the hardware side of things the reality was if you designed a microcomputer system you had to write your own code.
I have worked in scores of computer languages from raw binary in the early days, then assembler to high level. I probably worked with hundreds of dialects. And I mastered programmable logic controllers (used in automation), CNC and much more.
So I do understand both hardware and software, probably better then most people. Today the great majority of programmers are woefully ignorant of hardware, and because of this they are not equipped to understand the issues.
Read my lips, hardware and software solutions are often interchangeable. Inventions can be implemented with either approach. There is no rational reason that a hardware solution should be patentable while a software solution was not patentable. It would be economic suicide for America to give away all of the software related inventions so that a few very loud louts who claim that they are inventors while there is no proof that they ever invented anything. If you want to claim that you are an inventor then you must subject yourself to the peer review system which we call a patent. No patent equals no standing as an inventor.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST. -
On the post: Rep. Berman: Those Who Don't Like The PRO IP Bill Just Want To Steal Stuff
Ronald J Riley ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2008 @ 05:41pmMike's Severely Wounded Ego :)
I find it amusing, Ronald, that you fail to respond to rather simple questions that were asked of you:
Mike Masnick,
. a) Your tone does not sound amused, and that was my intent.
. b) You tend to ask the wrong questions and virtually always come to the wrong conclusions.
. c) This post is yet another example of how you misrepresent what other people say.
1. Please provide proof that I have been paid to do any public advocacy work?
. d) I said: “In my opinion Michael Masnick and Rep. Howard Berman are a lot alike, I think it is probable that when it comes to patents that both are serving the same masters.”
2. Will you please retract your statement claiming that I do paid public advocacy work, as it is clearly defamation? It is a false statement, which you repeat over and over again.
. e) You spout off about libel and ask for a retraction. Do you actually understand what is and what is not liable? The above is not libel. So we have you stating another error of fact.
3. How much money do you make from the organizations who you proudly announce with each and every comment that you run?
. f) I announce who I am affiliated with for transparency, so that people know exactly where I am coming from. None of us make a dime from the organizations. I and others each pay our own way. My income is from patent royalties and from manufacturing products.
4. Can you explain how making sure that only good patents get through is weakening the patent system?
. g) Mike, you are so simplistic. The patent bill has never been about “good patents”. And if you really wanted good patents you would be following our lead calling for tripling the number of examiners and cleaning up USPTO management which many believe is both incompetent and corrupt. Also, we have called for having the USPTO setting up a national non-patent prior art database. They would review submitted prior art for quality and credibility and add such as appropriate to the database.
5. Can you explain how I disagree with Rep. Berman on both the Pro IP bill and the patent reform act, yet you say we're paid by the "same corporate masters?"
. h) You expect me to explain your patently irrational and uninformed views about patents?
6. Can you explain why you insist on calling patents property, when law and common sense show they are different?
. i) Patents are a property right. Ask RIM & Microsoft if they understand this yet. Can you explain why you do not understand this?
7. Can you explain why you think that Jerome Lemelson is a worthwhile example when CAFC even said his patents are unenforceable?
. j) The CAFC said that a few of Lemelson’s patents are unenforceable because of long prosecution delays (laches). They did not address the fact that the USPTO was responsible for the bulk of those delays. Like most bureaucracies the USPTO is more than willing to blame their deficiencies on others.
. I knew Jerry Lemelson very well. He was an honorable man and an incredibly prolific multi-discipline inventor. I also know from first hand experience that USPTO management routinely uses and abuse inventors when it suits a patent pirating transnational.
These are simple questions,
. k) Yes they are just as simplistic as the rubbish you spew about the patent system.
Ronald. I find it amusing that you chose to answer none of them,
. l) Most of the time you ask the wrong questions, perhaps intentionally in an effort to limit the scope of the answers. And my time is limited.
and instead resorted to calling me names.
. m) You need a thicker skin. You also need to consider that your misleading smart assed responses to people may have a bit to do with the kind of responses you get.
You say people take you seriously, but it's difficult to understand why,
. n) Mike, you seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding a great many things.
when you seem to have trouble making a simple case for yourself, and you have repeatedly resorted to outright lies about me, and refuse to retract them when called on it.
. o) It is clear that you have a comprehension problem because I have not resorted to outright lies. But reasonable people might have cause to wonder about your intentions.
But there is a huge difference between the public relations spin which you are so good at and the truth.
Again, it has already been pointed out to you that we do no public relations work. Why do you repeat this lie? Perhaps it's because you have no actual facts to base your argument on, so you report to personal insults and libel.
. p) If you say so :) Mike I have a ton of research on various people who are trying to pass themselves off as experts. Most can be tied directly to a transnational patent pirating company. I may not choose to publicly comment on the specific affiliations but that does not mean that we do not know about them.
I am willing to bet that there are a bunch of people who are having a very good laugh over you losing your temper in this exchange.
I'm curious as to why you think I lost my temper? I asked you to back up your statements and retract your outright lie.
That's not losing my temper. That's asking you to actually back up a statement rather than fling lies and personal insults around.
Your response? Fling around a few more lies and personal insults.
Not particularly convincing.
. q) That is an awful lot of whining. Stop sending insulting responses and you might get better responses.
Let's face facts here: only one of us is involved in lobbying and public policy, and it's the one who's ego is so big he has to announce it in every post. Only one of us has pointed to actual peer-reviewed research supporting his position, and it's not you.
. r) It seems pretty clear that the crap you write is designed to rile up the unwashed and ignorant masses. It is interesting that this effectively promotes the agenda of large patent pirating transnationals.
I'm at a loss to understand why you think you're winning this debate.
. s) Mike, you seem to be at a loss when it comes to understanding intellectual property issues across the board.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Mike Insults All Inventors
"Actually, apparently you haven't been paying attention, because OLPC is getting sued for patent infringement itself."
"Why aren't you accusing Negroponte of being a thief?"
I am aware that he is the subject of one infringement claim. Meanwhile members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness & Piracy, aka the Piracy Coalition are collectively guilty of thousands of liberties with other's patent properties. They have been caught red handed with their sticky fingers in other's patent cookie jars. Their propaganda and your propaganda are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
I think that Negroponte is an academic who was clueless about the shark infested business waters he wadded into. He was an idealistic and ignorant academic who shunned patents. He has now learned the hard way about the real purpose of patents. Patents protect young inventive companies from big predators. That is why those predators formed the Coalition for Patent Fairness. They want to set a standard of "fairness" where they can take what they want with impunity.
"Why are you so anti-competition Ron? Afraid to compete?"
I most certainly am not afraid to compete. The patent system is all about encouraging competition. It does so by encouraging a competitor to invent an alternative. If they can compete by producing their own inventions that is fine by me. What they should not be able to do is steal other's inventions for their own profit. If OLPC had been conducting it's business with an eye towards patent protection they would not today be on a path to expiring with a whimper!
"So tell me Mike, whose trough are you feeding from, or is the problem ignorance and having one's head stuck so far up where the daylight doesn't shine that you will never be capable of sorting out right from wrong?"
"I've answered this question multiple times. I have nothing to hide. We do not receive any money for any public advocacy concerning the patent system or anything along those lines. Neither Intel nor Microsoft is a client of TechDIRT and they never have been. So I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make."
Perhaps the point I am trying to make is that I have been in this business for many years and seen no end of sleazy tactics by patent thieves. You constantly deny any connection and they do the same. You and they both spew the same drivel. I know not to believe them, and I think that there is good reason to apply the policy to you.
In any event, lets say that you are not a corporate stooge. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and fall back to the second possibility that you have your head stuck someplace where you simply cannot see the truth.
"You make accusations all the times and I've pointed out that you are wrong. Yet you insist on still making them. At this point I can only conclude that you enjoy lying."
Mike, it is you who are constantly spewing rubbish about inventors and about the invention process. Now you may be lying or you may simply be hopelessly ignorant.
"I would suggest an apology would be appropriate, but somehow I know it's not forthcoming. Instead, I'll expect baseless accusations and insults."
Virtually all your writings about patents are baseless accusations and insults against all American inventors. Rather it is to your ignorance of the system or who is buttering your bread really does not matter. You are insulting us. That includes Nobel and Hall of Fame inventors.
We know far more about the patent system than you ever will. We know more about the economics than you ever will. Yet you constantly come back with smart assed responses and then wonder why we disrespect you.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.