staff 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (191) comment rss

  • On the post: David Plouffe Gives Preliminary Response Concerning Obstacles To Innovation

    staff ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 06:40am

    jobs

    "reform policies that won't help (and might actually make the system worse)"

    Small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, ?startups aren?t everything when it comes to job growth. They?re the only thing.? Yet, thus far all efforts by Congress and the executive branch have nearly ignored small entity needs and input. Any policy that does not include them will jeopardize the country's future job creation and innovative potential. What we need is a federal government who is less of a rubber stamp for campaign contribution paying large corporate infringers who ship jobs overseas and more in tune to small entity needs.

    Just because they call it ?reform? doesn?t mean it is. Patent reform is a fraud on America.

    Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

  • On the post: No, Giving More Patents To Startups Won't Increase Innovation

    staff ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2011 @ 07:57am

    bridge

    "Entrepreneurship is all about the execution, and that's determined by the team, not some piece of paper."

    Do you "own" a car? What symbolizes your ownership, a title? Would anyone in their right mind pay for a house that they did not have title to? If you would, I would like to sell you a bridge.

  • On the post: The State Of Innovation Is Not Defined By The State Of Our Patent Trolls

    staff ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2011 @ 08:25am

    truth about trolls

    Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay?. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

    Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don?t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

    For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.

  • On the post: After Failed Lawsuit Against 'Copying Competitor' CEO Admits That The Competition Made Her Company Better

    staff ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2011 @ 08:14am

    duel

    Not all competition is fair. When the courts permit a larger competitor to use an invention without the inventor's permission, it's like having a duel where your challenger has your gun and all the bullets. Think again...or just think!

  • On the post: Can You Speed Up Patent Reviews While Improving Patent Quality?

    staff ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2011 @ 08:32am

    whining

    "getting rid of bad patents"

    What large companies who whine about it mean is get rid of patents owned by small entities that they are subject too. The truth is they really don't care about patent quality or pendancy.

    For a knowledgeable analysis of patent issues, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.

  • On the post: eBay Shutting Down Rubik's Cube Knockoff Sales Due To Patent Infringement Claim (Not From Rubik's Maker)

    staff ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2010 @ 09:35am

    Please stop writing about patents

    "what's wrong with just letting puzzle makers come up with cool puzzles and then letting them compete in the market"

    Unfair business practice. Many states have these types of laws. In general, it would be unfair for someone to copy what someone else created without the permission of the inventor. Please stop writing about patents. If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will.

  • On the post: US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development

    staff ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2010 @ 08:28am

    confused yourself

    From the excerpt of the ambassador it sounds like she knows what she's talking about. If there are too many instances where patents will not be issued, or if the rights are diminished, it acts as a disincentive. No patents -no development. She's figured it out. When will you?

  • On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property

    staff ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2010 @ 07:00am

    stop dissembling

    A modest proposal...end patents

    As Franklin once said in Poor Richard's, things are not 'bad because they are sinful, but rather sinful because they are bad for us'. Similarly, there is a reason for property rights. No one would build or create anything if they could not be assured they would benefit from it. That applies as much to physical creations (houses, products, etc) as it does to products of the mind. Often small firms bet the farm on their technologies. Without the right to exclude others form using they just become free R&D shops for large corps. It's not that hard to figure this out...once you stop dissembling.

  • On the post: Company Tries To Patent Giving You A Reward For Not Defaulting On Your Mortgage

    staff ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2010 @ 06:46am

    compete

    "the company might actually be better off if it had some more competition in the market..."

    Actually, it can be argued that patents are good for competition. It's extremely difficult for a small or startup firm to compete with large firms who are entrenched in the market place. Patents allow small firms to seize a niche in the market and gives them a chance to compete with large firms. At the same time it advances market technologies. Otherwise, large firms would be happy to keep rolling out old worn out products with no end in sight.

  • On the post: Do We Really Need A Patent Battle Over Group Buying?

    staff ( profile ), 23 Nov, 2010 @ 06:27am

    obstacles

    "as jealous folks who couldn't or didn't execute start suing those who executed better"

    Not necessarily. Each entity faces its own unique set of obstacles. Small entities are heavily dependent on patents to get funding. When they have to fight for their patents over a course of many years it greatly hinders and delays their ability to commercialize.

  • On the post: Putting 'Game Pieces' Together Online To Win Something Patented; All The Big Social Gaming Companies Sued

    staff ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2010 @ 06:28am

    lather

    "But all that seems like it should be obvious. "

    Don't get all worked in to a lather. If the defendants have anything near proof the patent is invalid all they need do is file for reexam and the PTO will most always grant. Keep in mind it costs patentees plenty to bring suit. If they truly thought their patent was invalid, they wouldn't risk the money. Have a beer and chill out.

  • On the post: Canadian Court Says Amazon's One-Click Patent Should Be Allowed

    staff ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2010 @ 07:11am

    ridiculous

    "what it knows is a ridiculous patent"

    Apparently not as it has been upheld in the US and Canada. What is ridiculous is you keep ragging on all patents. If that is not bias, what is?

  • On the post: Would US Officials Really Decide Not To Sign ACTA?

    staff ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2010 @ 07:01am

    too late to fix

    "We'll only talk to you after it's too late to fix?"

    No surprise there. That's how Congress and the President have handled what they call patent reform. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

  • On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap… And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying

    staff ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2010 @ 06:12pm

    exclude others

    "by limiting how companies can copy certain aspects, it's actually limiting their ability to successfully tweak and improve upon important concepts"

    Actually, so others can copy is one purpose of the patent system. But, without the right to exclude others from use of a discovery for at least a limited time, no one wants to share for fear they themselves will get no benefit for the effort and risks they invest in creating their invention. That's why Stradivarius took his secrets with him to the grave. There is a reason for property rights. It just makes sense. In fact, it was for that reason in part that the colonies broke from England.

  • On the post: Meet The Patent Thicket: Who's Suing Who For Smartphone Patents

    staff ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2010 @ 04:53pm

    modern patents

    "thickets are hindering innovation"

    Not so. Without patents there would be no small companies developing technologies pushing large entrenched firms. Wonder why science has progressed so much more in the last 200 years than in the previous 5000? Patents. It wasn't until the introduction of modern patents that science really found its stride.

  • On the post: Say It Ain't So, Woz: Steve Wozniak Says Patent Trolls Are Okay

    staff ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2010 @ 10:22am

    Call it what you will

    Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: ?we?re using your invention and we?re not going to pay?.

    For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.

  • On the post: Study About IP On The Human Genome Shows That Patents Hindered Innovation

    staff ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2010 @ 05:46am

    conclusions

    Also, even if one could find an isolated case where one or more patent hindered innovation, the conclusion that patents overall hinder innovation would not be supported.

  • On the post: Study About IP On The Human Genome Shows That Patents Hindered Innovation

    staff ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2010 @ 05:41am

    a shill is a shill

    Not all researchers or research are created equal. When their conclusions fly in the face of reason -look harder. If you could not own the house you built, would you build it?

  • On the post: Author Claims Patents Made Industrial Revolution Possible; Then Shows Why He's Wrong

    staff ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 08:56am

    stop the shilling

    "those who led the way get upset about new competitors and new upstarts, and push for greater protectionist policies to keep the competitors out of the market"

    Wrong again. Rather, it's the opposite way such as where your well healed multinational friends are paying fake journalists like you to cover up the fact that they are bribing Congress to change the patent laws to make it harder for small upstarts to get and enforce patents.

    Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
    Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

  • On the post: Toyota Settles Big Hybrid Engine Patent Lawsuit; Demonstrates The Patent Tax

    staff ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 11:46am

    Please write about something else

    "Toyota invented its technology entirely independently..."

    Patents are issued to the inventor, meaning the first to make a discovery. They then own the technology. Runners up, if that is true, have no claim to the invention. If they use it, they must pay like anyone else. Obviously, you know nothing about invention and patents. Please write about something else.

Next >>