Perry Mason's Techdirt Profile

Perry Mason

About Perry Mason

Perry Mason's Comments comment rss

  • Aug 24, 2009 @ 08:00pm

    Hello Mike,
    So it looks again as if we will have to respectfully disagree with one another, which at least provides a little spice here and there, nicht wahr? I still cannot comprehend why you so avidly attempt to remove the rights that the US government has awarded to innovative folks, and Yes *inventors*. Say it with me now Mike, "Innovators are not the same as Inventors." What point about that do you not understand? Why are inventors always bad and greedy in your opinion? Just because they want to earn a profit for about 10 years for their *invention*? Yes Mike, their are real inventions and inventors out there, whether you happen to like it or not. They will not go away, as it is a major part of American history. Why are you trying to change that so vociferously? IT influences, or perhaps a Chinese connection?
    Despite all your blustering, there are very few facts and NUMBERS included in your Daisy-Chain postings. That is very unfair to inventors all over the world, and not just to those here in the US.

    Yours Truly,
    Perry Mason

  • May 15, 2009 @ 08:25pm

    Oops! Sorry about the double post to all...

    Perry

  • May 15, 2009 @ 08:13pm

    Hello Mike,
    I do not believe they are bogus stats at all, as they come from the National Small Business Association, which has been doing business as the NSBA since about 1937 or so. Where do you derive Your numbers from? I have seen very few links where I might be able to actually READ all this information that you are referring to. All I seem to be reading is your opinions, which would probably not hold up in Court, for instance. Ha Ha doesn't help at all.~

    Hahaha. Oh man. You make me laugh. You post bogus stats from biased parties unsupported by reality. You know back in the Mercantilist era, nearly 80% of the economy of the UK was backed by monopolies from the gov't. Yet, people realized that was a bad thing and held back growth. That's not evidence that patents are good. That's evidence that they're abused. Also, the VC stat is ridiculous and has been widely debunked. I spend plenty of time with VCs and it's only the bad ones who care about patents.

    That 75% of the new inventions come from very small businesses?

    That has nothing to do with patents. I'm willing to believe it's true, and it's all the more reason why they should be wary of patents being abused to stop them from building strong businesses.

    ~On the other hand, it has everything to do with what gets invented, as if there is no market for the *inventions*, they will not be implemented, and you and others can go chew on somebody else's leg. I have not bothered to read many of your other explanations, as I don't happen to find them to be especially relevant to my case, and to be perfectly honest, I really happen to dislike your prediliction for insulting the intelligence of any that happen to disagree with your opinions. As I mentioned yesterday, I am not an attorney, but have watched Perry Mason on television for several years... I invent new things, and happen to take exception when non-inventors casually take cheap shots at the importance of new technologies. Pennecillan, Smallpox and Polio vaccines, and perhaps Quinine are all good examples of good inventions or discoveries that have saved millions of lives and prevented a lot of misery. Do you and your pals think that the inventors or innovators should not be allowed to profit from their works? An inquiring mind would really like to know...
    I am very glad to hear that you agree that the current patent reform efforts are perhaps somewhat mis-guided, as recent court decisions in the Fed Circ and Supreme Court have significantly changed the lay of the land as regards what is possible to be claimed as an *inventon* I would much prefer that the courts decide issues like this, as there seem to be precious few in the Congress that really understand how badly they might harm the future of American innovative efforts if they pass and implement legislation that is overwhelmingly in the favor of large corporations.

    Perry Mason~


    That small businesses and inventors are trying to be subdued by large IT firms that have been trying to run them out of the market, if not off the planet, to the tune of over $100 million in lobbying the Congress of the US to change US patent to suit themselves, and apparently Mike Masnik as well?~

    First of all, I'm not sure which part of my many explanations of why I'm also AGAINST the current patent reform you seemed to have missed (hell, I even said it in this VERY POST), but it's pretty ridiculous for you to accuse me of supporting the patent reform bill when I do not. I agree that big tech companies are pushing it, and I think it's a bad plan.

    For you to falsely accuse me of supporting it (and worse, claiming that I'm shilling for it) is so laughable as to suggest that you not only have no credibility, but no reading comprehension as well.

    I don't support the patent reform bill at all.

    Now, back to the issue of big tech companies "stealing" from small companies. As we've detailed here at great length, that claim is also totally overblown. It's quite difficult for big companies to actually copy truly innovative small businesses -- which is why we so often see small businesses up end legacy businesses. It's not about copying, it's about execution, and small companies have many advantages in being able to out-execute big companies.

    If your idea is REALLY innovative, trust me, most big companies will totally ignore it.

  • May 15, 2009 @ 08:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Hello Mike,
    I do not believe they are bogus stats at all, as they come from the National Small Business Association, which has been doing business as the NSBA since about 1937 or so. Where do you derive Your numbers from? I have seen very few links where I might be able to actually READ all this information that you are referring to. All I seem to be reading is your opinions, which would probably not hold up in Court, for instance. Ha Ha doesn't help at all.~

    Hahaha. Oh man. You make me laugh. You post bogus stats from biased parties unsupported by reality. You know back in the Mercantilist era, nearly 80% of the economy of the UK was backed by monopolies from the gov't. Yet, people realized that was a bad thing and held back growth. That's not evidence that patents are good. That's evidence that they're abused. Also, the VC stat is ridiculous and has been widely debunked. I spend plenty of time with VCs and it's only the bad ones who care about patents.

    That 75% of the new inventions come from very small businesses?

    That has nothing to do with patents. I'm willing to believe it's true, and it's all the more reason why they should be wary of patents being abused to stop them from building strong businesses.

    ~On the other hand, it has everything to do with what gets invented, as if there is no market for the *inventions*, they will not be implemented, and you and others can go chew on somebody else's leg. I have not bothered to read many of your other explanations, as I don't happen to find them to be especially relevant to my case, and to be perfectly honest, I really happen to dislike your prediliction for insulting the intelligence of any that happen to disagree with your opinions. As I mentioned yesterday, I am not an attorney, but have watched Perry Mason on television for several years... I invent new things, and happen to take exception when non-inventors casually take cheap shots at the importance of new technologies. Pennecillan, Smallpox and Polio vaccines, and perhaps Quinine are all good examples of good inventions or discoveries that have saved millions of lives and prevented a lot of misery. Do you and your pals think that the inventors or innovators should not be allowed to profit from their works? An inquiring mind would really like to know...
    I am very glad to hear that you agree that the current patent reform efforts are perhaps somewhat mis-guided, as recent court decisions in the Fed Circ and Supreme Court have significantly changed the lay of the land as regards what is possible to be claimed as an *inventon* I would much prefer that the courts decide issues like this, as there seem to be precious few in the Congress that really understand how badly they might harm the future of American innovative efforts if they pass and implement legislation that is overwhelmingly in the favor of large corporations.

    Perry Mason~


    That small businesses and inventors are trying to be subdued by large IT firms that have been trying to run them out of the market, if not off the planet, to the tune of over $100 million in lobbying the Congress of the US to change US patent to suit themselves, and apparently Mike Masnik as well?~

    First of all, I'm not sure which part of my many explanations of why I'm also AGAINST the current patent reform you seemed to have missed (hell, I even said it in this VERY POST), but it's pretty ridiculous for you to accuse me of supporting the patent reform bill when I do not. I agree that big tech companies are pushing it, and I think it's a bad plan.

    For you to falsely accuse me of supporting it (and worse, claiming that I'm shilling for it) is so laughable as to suggest that you not only have no credibility, but no reading comprehension as well.

    I don't support the patent reform bill at all.

    Now, back to the issue of big tech companies "stealing" from small companies. As we've detailed here at great length, that claim is also totally overblown. It's quite difficult for big companies to actually copy truly innovative small businesses -- which is why we so often see small businesses up end legacy businesses. It's not about copying, it's about execution, and small companies have many advantages in being able to out-execute big companies.

    If your idea is REALLY innovative, trust me, most big companies will totally ignore it.

  • May 14, 2009 @ 10:33pm

    Re:

    Bettaw: You are most decidedly NOT making a good case for anything but a Communistic approach to Intellectual Property, which is perhaps Mike's motive as well. Open Source and Public Patent and all like that. Give me the goods for free and you can be my pal for a while. Seems a bit out of touch with the real world to me though, like something is happening behind the scenes that nobody is ever allowed to see or hear of, if you can catch my drift, or otherwise get my meaning. Have you ever listened to a Firesign Theater album before? Cheech and Chong?

    Perry Mason~

  • May 14, 2009 @ 10:20pm

    Re:

    Bettaw: Do you have ANY IDEA how fast the rest of the world would take my wind turbine invention away from me if I didn't at least have a valid US patent? Why should they care? What you are suggesting is that I GIVE it away, with no possible hope of seeing a dime for all of my efforts. Bad inventions don't make it, but good ones can make a very large difference. Dean Kamen patented a portable device to administer medication to people who needed it very badly, probably saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. Do you really believe he shouldn't have been allowed to profit from his invention? Why would he have spent countless hours developing it, if he didn't think he might be able to make a few bucks at the end of the day? So no, I am Not Buying your 96% empty suggestion, as it is comparing apples and oranges, and makes little sense to me. Failure rate indeed. Perhaps sometimes you fail to make your case adequately, but then again, sometimes you do.

    Perry Mason~

  • May 14, 2009 @ 09:39pm

    Re:

    Bettaw: So do you think I should just GIVE my new wind turbine away to the world, after I spent about $20,000 and about 6 months of my life developing into something that is ready togo and nearly indestructible? For FREE? That's not even to mention an extremely efficient new type of highspeed marine propulsion, a very inespensive new type of wind turbine support system, and new ways to mold wind turbine blades or aircraft wings, that are much lighter than are currently possible. Just give it away for Nothing? I happen to be a small business, so can't really afford to give my time and expenses away for free.

    Perry Mason

  • May 14, 2009 @ 09:27pm

    Re:

    Bettaw: Perhaps you misunderstand my motives. I have Not made a lot of money from my inventions, but tend to protest when a bunch of political rhetoric seeks to take away any possibility of my Ever profiting from all the time and effort and money I have spent trying to develop inventions that are very beneficial to society. Is it so wrong to ask for a measly 3 or 4% royalty on the wholesale price of the products to re-imburse me for all my hard work? In most cases, only 3 or 4% of patents actually get turned into real products or services, so often can't understand why folks like Mike are beating the drum so loudly to take away what little chance inventors still have to succeed. It reminds me of folks like Microsoft headed by Ballmer, who would kill the value of patents so that they can increase their profit margin by about One Quarter of One Percent. How greedy is that? THAT seems Greedy, to my way of thinking...

    Perry Mason

  • May 14, 2009 @ 08:45pm

    Re: Credibility
    by Mike - May 14th, 2009 @ 7:11pm
    1) I have multiple patents and Mike has none.

    Which seems rather meaningless when it comes to understanding the economic impact of patents, doesn't it? If anything, that should harm your credibility for bias. You make money off the system, so of course you defend it.

    ~What system? Do you mean the laws governing the rights granted to US inventors by the US Constitution? If you don't like that *system*, it sounds to me like you will need a Constitutional Amendment to correct the flaws MIKE sees in the *system*~

    2) I have commercialized patents and Mike has not.

    I have built a successful business without patents, despite the fact that we could have patented some of the tech we developed. What business did you build?

    Again, it would appear my credibility here seems stronger, since I've shown that patents are not necessary to build a successful business.

    ~Well I suppose so, but my niece made a good profit from her Lemonade stand when she was about 12 years old. Not sure about the credibility part, as I have Never seen you quoted in any of the IP blogspots. Not invective, just the truth.Have you ever considered that you might not be thought of at all in the IP bloggosphere?~

    3) I have been dealing with public policy issues related to inventing and the utility of the patent system far longer than Mike and understand the issues in ways which no blowhard pseudo self professed expert can possibility understand.

    Resorting to insults doesn't increase your credibility. Nor does talking about how long you've been wrong on these issues.

    Mike, you constantly spout nonsense about the patent system and inventing, and never seem to learn.

    Ronald, we have asked you to actually present some evidence to refute the evidence and research I presented. Last time we did so, you insulted my parents. Now, that's credible.

    ~Now this sentence is Really Rich! I have never seen anything that I would consider to be evidence to support your Rush Limbaugh of IP proclamations. Just lots of very cynical observations about what inventors should or should not be allowed to be able to get a patent for.(overwhelmingly Not) Why all the hate and animosity towards inventors and patents? I resemble the following sentence, since you are apparently trying to take away my rights to profit from my honestly and hard-won innovative efforts.~

    Why is it that the inevitable result of your interactions with inventors is their coming to disrespect you?

    The only ones who seem to "disrespect" me are ones who are followers of your views. I work with numerous inventors and patent holders all the time. Some of my closest friends are very successful "inventors" and my wife holds a patent as well. All of them seem to agree with me about the problems caused by patents. The fact that you've got a few followers who have been abusing the system and are angry at me for showing that is hardly a knock on my credibility.

    There is a reason that they shift from trying to educate you to simply making fun of you.

    Yes, clearly because they have no fundamental basis on which to base their misguided assertions. If they did, they would present it and this would be over. The fact that none of your little band of followers have ever even TRIED to present evidence speaks volumes.

    ~What type of evidence would you like to hear Mr. Masnik? Perhaps the fact that 40% of the value of the US economy is represented by Intellectual Property? That 80% of the new jobs in the US are created by innovative small businesses, that generally use patents to validate venture capital funding? That 75% of the new inventions come from very small businesses? That small businesses and inventors are trying to be subdued by large IT firms that have been trying to run them out of the market, if not off the planet, to the tune of over $100 million in lobbying the Congress of the US to change US patent to suit themselves, and apparently Mike Masnik as well?~



    What do you think the latency is in the life cycle of inventing? I submit that MercExchange and KSR are already extracting a terrible toll on the invention process. It will take ten to twenty years for the full impact to become apparent in the marketplace and it will ten take a similar amount of time to fix the problem.

    Ok. Fair enough. I'll grant you that it may be early in the process, but if it were actually true that the damage of MercExchange and KSR (both of which simply brought more reasonable policies into play) were causing a terrible toll, we'd see it in the investment community. I spend a lot of time working with tech investors. It hasn't bothered any of them. At all.

    But, let's make a deal. Let's revisit this in 10 years and see what the evidence is.


    ~Is this last supposed to be funny? I find it to be extremely perverse and warped, because we all know it will be too late to save the US economy if inventors and the US patent *system* is slanted to favor large IT corporations for only a year or two. More substantive evidence please, and perhaps a bit less pontificating on your part Mike. Once again, I can hardly imagine any mention of your particular opinions ever appearing on Patently O or any other Patent Law blogs that hope to keep their credibility intact.~

    Perry Mason~

  • May 14, 2009 @ 07:05pm

    by Anonymous Coward - May 14th, 2009 @ 5:52pm
    Ronald J. Riley,

    Please explain why nature should be patentable.

    Hello AC,

    Haven't you ever heard of gene splicing? Back in the 60's and seventies,there were tremendous gains in the productivity of corn and rice crops for example, as scientists experimented with splitting genes and re-combining them to produce hybrids that were at once more productive, more disease tolerant, and also needed less water in some cases, due to the cross-linking of the desired genetic features. That is not to even mention that the farmers could radically reduce their use of pesticides, which are by their very nature are usually somewhat toxic. The end result was improved yeild, less expense to the farmers, and less use of questionable pesticides to avoid losing large percentages of the farmers' profits, to the publics benefit, I would tend to think.

    Perry Mason

  • Feb 23, 2009 @ 07:20pm

    Re: Re: I love techdirt!

    Ron.... I think Mr. Masnick actually believes the dreck he is purveying, much to my astonishment. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck though, so I can imagine him girding his retirement loins behind the scenes where nobody could possibly hear about it. Perhaps a little of both, but only the shadow will ever really know for sure. One has to wonder why he spends apparently about 12 hours a day writing witty and nasty responses to anyone who disagrees with his law according to Mike. It might help his case a bit if he actually knew anything about patent law, but I have seen little evidence of it lately.
    Perry Mason

  • Jan 01, 2009 @ 02:29pm

    "Inside of here, we are an anonymous being, and can conduct ourselves as such..." (From the video) This goes a very long ways towards explaining Mike's and several other folks's behavior here. Of course Mike has my e-mail address, so he can yell at me personally, but perhaps it is interesting that some may have lost touch with reality in minor or major ways. Does anyone here think the Wright brothers' patent should have been dis-allowed? It only claimed the use of hinged ailerons, but I am supposing that some here would maintain that wing warping anticipated their patent, so their nasty and greedy patent rights should not have been allowed. Perry

  • Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:01pm

    From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department.

    Sorry I got to this so late, but I certainly appreciate Mike's empathy for Ronald J's plight at being sued by Dozier. Thanks Mike... Despite what anyone thinks of Ron's personal style of communication, the fact still remains that he has helped hundreds of inventors see the bigger picture, and drastically improved their odds of being successful inventors. He has been doing so for at least 6 years that I know of, and as some here have noted, he is very passionate about *Patent Reform* or anyone else berserking said inventors out of their constitutional rights to profit from their inventions for a limited time (generally 20 years after they are demonstrated to be the first inventor to file here in the US by being awarded an ostensibly valid patent)

    As regards all the allegations that he is trying to profit personally thereby are totally ludicrous, in my opinion, as he has consistently taken significant amounts of money out of His pocket to help other inventors. I don't know specifically how much or why, but having communicated with him over several years, I can assure you that he has probably seen a loss every year for his efforts. For those that don't know, Mr. Riley is a very prolific and successful inventor, which is probably why he is so passionate about it, and why anonymous cowards are so quick to jump all over him.

    BTW... The Angry Dude is probably a prominent patent attorney or clever agent that doesn't want to sully his reputation by rolling around in the muck with the clueless bloggers that routinely pat each other or Mike on the back here, which I happen to find somewhat pathetic. Don't any of you guys have a job?

    That being said, I applaud Mike for his intelligence and willingness to discuss things in an impartial manner, and to avoid all the emotional dreck that seems to be so common on this blog. Like Ron, he at least gets the juices flowing, even if I don't happen to agree with his premises or conclusions.

    Perry Mason

  • Aug 17, 2008 @ 01:52pm

    Re:

    Director Mitch,
    The latest failed attempt at a *Patent Reform Act* is nearly exactly what you describe, were *they* to have their way. The trick seems to be discovering just who *they* are. The US patent system has been extant for something like 216 years and has been working just fine, thank you, to spur innovation, and suddenly it seems as if all the techies want to change it to suit their whims? We most likely wouldn't be corresponding right now, unless a few young upstarts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were granted a few patents by the USPTO, which allowed them to build Microsoft and Apple.
    I happen to be an independent inventor, so the radical reducton of the value of US patents is of great concern to me, or any patents for that matter.
    "The pump don't work, because the vandals took the handle" (Bob Dylan)

    Best wishes,
    Perry Mason

  • Aug 16, 2008 @ 04:48pm

    Re: Settlement amounts

    Chris,
    Very well said by perhaps someone that knows whereof he/she speaks. I don't quite understand how the tactics employed by the patent holder would be considered sneaky or underhanded by anyone. If a court battle seems to be imminent from a particular quarter, why would any attorney in their right mind want to discuss damages or appeasement payment amounts with the adversarial attorney? It is somewhat like asking a fellow employee how much they are getting paid, and expecting them to immediately tell you just because they want you to.

    Cheers,
    Perry Mason

  • Aug 16, 2008 @ 03:14pm

    Mike,
    It seems to me as if the use of the terms "patent hoarder" or "patent trolls" is perhaps just a negative insinuation about the motives of those that *own* things, be it Intellectual Property in this case, or Real Estate Property, for instance, or maybe even just money.
    Is the fact that they are acquiring valuable property such an evil thing? Are the real estate development folks doing something ominous or unfair? They invested time and/or money into building valuable assets, so why shouldn't Real or Intellectual Property owners be allowed to profit from their efforts? The only recourse both currently seem to have is suing the stealing/infringing parties, which Very rarely happens in Real Estate (stealing), but is Way too common in the case of Intellectual Property (infringement) in my opinion.
    Am I to believe that large IT companies don't even care enough to do a reasonably comprehensive patent search before they start marketing products to the public? THAT would be a very bad business decision to my way of thinking, unless the company just decided that they could destroy the patent instead, and leave the inventor out in the cold because they have a large budget. I wish I could have been a spider on the wall when Microsoft, et al discovered that they couldn't just buy whatever verdict they liked, and were ordered to pay 1.5 Billion in damages for being a thief (infringement) They slithered out of most of it on appeal, but the fact still remains that they were apparently intentionally infringing on a valid patent granted by the USPTO.
    I really don't quite understand your assertion that if an invention were to be devoloped at nearly the same time in more than one place, that all parties are entitled to do whatever they like. If one of the inventors can prove that they were the First to Invent, (as is the case in the US exclusively) usually via a granted patent, why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from their invention for a limited time?
    Perhaps it might be useful if you could endeavor to explain to us all what a *Bad* patent is. How about newborn children? Because the child has health or intelligence issues, would they be considered *Bad*, and maybe abolished?

    Zeig heil!
    Perry Mason

  • Aug 12, 2008 @ 08:33pm

    So pray tell, Mr. Mike Masnik, who was it that appointed you as an expert in patent law? Why do I not see even the slightest hint of any credentials to support your *expert opinions* about patent law? Did you ever hear what happened to Rick Frankel, after his outing as being the Patent Troll Tracker? HE was a Patent Attorney, and apparently you ARE NOT. So please tell us all why we should listen to your twisted reasoning about Intellectual Property rights, and how it (does not) relate to real estate property rights. I have seen some very wise advice come from these discussions, and nearly none of it comes from you, Mike Masnick. Judging from your very diligent efforts to fend off the hordes of inventors that would like to profit from their ingenuity, it gives me pause to wonder what your true motives are. Is it just the Dirt factor, or the IT ... I will pay you this for saying or insinuating this.... An inquiring mind would really like to know. Della! Make a note of it!

    Perry Mason