Ad hominem attacks? Is that what you think my reply was? You made an extremely sweeping statement that is simply not supported by facts or evidence. Perhaps you should give context in the comment rather than forcing people to visit your website.

-Gene

Hey, good luck on your upcoming debate!

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong they are. Frankly, your reply wreaks of someone in the product development, marketing and packaging line. Many times folks in these areas do not want people to pursue patents because if you do the responsible thing you don’t have funds available for their services. If folks fall into that category they really should ask why they are pursuing their invention in the first place.

You obviously are not as sophisticated as you claim to be, and I hardly think you are a technical expert. You are talking about start-ups wanting to license their “usually lame idea.” It sounds to me like you do not deal with start-ups at all, nor do you deal with businesses. Start-up companies are those with investors, technology and a product or service. If those folks do not obtain IP they will fail, pure and simple.

Even your comment is full of tell-tale signs that you are a pretender. A start-up company in the bio-tech sector that does not pursue patents will not be viable for long, and will either never obtain investors or lose the investors they have. The same can be said for any high-tech start-up. Despite you talking in such global terms, which are obviously uninformed, you seem to be focusing on products, perhaps gadgets and then generalizing to absurd levels. You also then conclude that patent are ridiculous in your industry, but never say what your industry is.

If you are eating from the innovation plate I suspect you go hungry often. Folks are free to follow your advice if they like, and I suspect many unsophisticated inventors and entrepreneurs will, to their own peril.

Finally, developing a product that anyone can copy without penalty is an extraordinarily generous gesture to mankind. If that is what folks want to do then by all means do not get a patent and let the fruits of your labors inure to the benefit of society, who will copy you and prevent you from recouping your expenditures.

-Gene

Now let me tell you something, the start ups who obsess over IP? They don’t go anywhere. They blow all their money on legal stuff and have nothing left over for product development or production. Nobody wants to license their (usually lame) idea. Ideas are a dime a pallet in this business and just as valuable. Execution is everything. It’s at the point that if someone says they have a patent, people snicker. Nobody is going to front you production, you have to either pay up front but at delivery at the latest. The thinking is, if you’re so dumb to have patented something so obvious or existing that it’s been used already for 30 or more years, nobody trusts you. You have limited exposure to the industry and you make lousy decisions. If you pursue a patent, your costs are going to be triple that of anyone else and that’s even assuming your product has legs. Meaning, apparel is seasonally (trend) driven. Miss the boat on a trend and you’ll have to wait 30 years for a reset. Problem is, patent seekers can’t respond in a timely way.

To recap, I EAT from the innovation plate. I’m 100% behind whatever is in the best interests of my clients because that’s what pays my bills. Unfortunately, that isn’t patents (and I’m a technical expert). In this industry (manufacturing and jobs, remember?) patents make one a laughingstock. And besides, here’s another factoid for you. MOST of the people who seek patents don’t care about jobs. At least not domestically. They’re price shopping in Asia so nobody in the US gains from it. And you know, some of those people get knocked off by their foreign contractor or rather, it’s more likely the contractor is cashing in on a trend that already existed prior to the patent effort but the “innovator” hasn’t shopped the market well enough to know that. Maybe patents are great in other industries but they’re ridiculous in mine.

I, for one, can not believe how many Bozo’s are out there. Capitalism dictates profit, patents protect innovation, innovation drives investment from investors, and investors obtain profit from their risk. This has always been clear in my mind. As an inventor, I thought it was a step backward when patents changed from the 17 year rule. Now I see there are more idiots out there who could never innovate themselves. The publication of applications gives me years to come up with a better way to accomplish the same task, in a better way.

You could do a modified version of a formal debate. Here’s an example format off of the top of my head:

1) A question is posed. Each side has 1 day to answer it independently in written form and send the answer to the moderator. Each answer may be a maximum of 1,000 words.
2) The question and both answers are published simultaneously on a web page.
3) Each side has 1 day to craft a response and send it to the moderator. The response may be a maximum of 500 words.
4) Both responses are published simultaneously as an update to the page with the original responses.
5) A new question is posed, starting over at step 1. This is either repeated a set number of times (e.g. 5) known from the start, or the debate ends when one party declares he or she doesn’t want to participate further.

You are right, but how would one do that over the Internet? I would love to do a “real” debate, and what I envisioned would be a series of follow ups. What I really want though is some kind of even situation where folks can figure out for themselves who answers the question and who has the superior answer. The anti-patent crowd typically does not provide much more than conclusions and insults. So I am game for whatever and find it insulting for Kinsella to lie about what I offered.

Thanks for reading, and if you have any ideas on how to pull this off I would love to hear it. I would also be willing to appear live for a debate if it can be pulled off.

-Gene

See: http://ipwatchdog.com/images/ScreenShot167.png

Notice I deleted the e-mail address, and I have only presented what I said so as to not compromise the private communication of others, or to open e-mails up to spam.

-Gene

Actually I have offered this, specifically and repeatedly, and in private e-mail communications you and I have had. To be honest, I didn’t think you were a liar, but now it is clear that you are. I have offered this very thing over and over again, and now that you cannot hide from the offer any more you elect to run and hide and call my arguments “fumbling.” If they are fumbling then you should have no trouble “eviscerating” me in public. Everyone knows why you won’t agree, and your attempts to continue to cast me in a negative light are pathetic.

I am glad that you see no reason to continue and hope you never visit IPWatchdog.com again. I have no use for liars.

-Gene

“I have offered a point by point debate where everyone answers the same question in 300 to 500 words”

No, Gene, you have not. And this is evident to anyone who reads your fumbling attempts at argument. I see no reason to continue to discuss this with you.

You may not like the argument, but it is a pretty clear one to understand and does not seem that problematic to me: we know where we have got to today with the patent system that we have; we have absolutely no idea what may have been achieved without it. It could be that, as the arguments you and Mike make imply, we would have had more innovation and even more exciting and powerful products across a range of technologies. But what if you are wrong?

What if funding to start-ups and SMEs – so frequently the source of disruptive technological progress – dries up because VCs and other investors will not back companies that cannot protect their innovations?

If these start-ups and SMEs do manage to get a product to market, what happens when it is copied and sold more cheaply by a bigger competitor with stronger supply lines and the ability to take a hit unti the start-up/SME folds because it just canot match the big company price?

What happens if drugs companies decide they no longer want to spend billions on R&D because as soon as they come up with something worthwhile generic companies will be at perfect liberty to produce and sell copies at much lower prices because they have not had to invest in the R&D?

What happens if companies from the developed world stop transferring technology to the developing world because they no longer have any kind of certainty the technology will not just walk out of the door?

If we are going to get rid of patents, we need a lot more from the anti-patent side than a few economic studies tat may seem to suggest patents are a drag on innovation – especially when you go into these studies and look at some of the mis-assumptions about patents and the way they are used that underpin them. In any case, it is not as if economists have a flawless record in predicting the future. If they did, we would not just be coming out of the worst financial meltdown the world has been through in the last 80 years.

As I said, we know where we have got to with the patent system. And we have not done too badly. Maybe we could have done better without patents. But the onus has to be on those who believe so to demonstrate this absolutely, because if what you want is done and it turns out you were wrong everyone on this planet is going to lose an awful lot.

http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Admin/detail.aspx?g=711ce070-8e7e-4b80-8c2a-3b49e9af029e

Are you obtuse? Do you not recognize the purpose fo the Windbag Meter posting?

While a usual gambit in the arena of public opinion manipulation, an avalanche of dogma makes for a weak legal argument.

Who will pay for innovation? Why do you assume that entrepreneurs won’t choose to do what Peter does, and innovate, release good products to market, and choose to operate without IP protection? Consumers will pay for innovations they value, and smart businesses will create ever better products and gain customer loyalty. This is how innovation worked for ages, and whether you believe it or not, you may not be necessary for that process. Not everything in life needs some kind of lawyer exacting expensive hourly fees for it to work.

I have proposed a modest experiment to test this theory, although there is plenty of evidence supporting the notion that innovation not only might not require patents, but might be speedier and more efficient without them. No one has responded to my comments about the mess that patents have resulted in for big Pharma… Nor has anyone explained to me how patents are not a socialist institution, a form of corporate welfare, or a government subsidy. I assume no one has any good responses then to these claims.

We have answered the claim that somehow history “proves” that patents are necessary for innovation. History proves no such thing, and you can only point to correlations. Moreover, there is good evidence that the opposite is true, although you choose to dismiss those studies and that evidence, replying instead on your allegation that “history” provides all the proof. Our studies are flawed, but your recourse to “history” is ample proof? Which takes us back to square one.

I must modify my earlier claim that these are simply religious viewpoints, because in the course of this discussion a number of apparent converts to the anti-IP side have emerged, so I see that some people, when faced with the evidence will change their minds. I will hold out hope that you too might someday set aside your religious belief, ditch the propaganda, and look carefully and objectively at the evidence, Gene. Meanwhile,

Peace.

I have offered a point by point debate where everyone answers the same question in 300 to 500 words, and as yet I have no takers, yet you contend I am completely outmatched. That is obviously not the case, and you and everyone else is obviously afraid to answer questions one at a time and let readers figure out who is and who is not outmatched. No point proving in a straight forward manner that it is Kinsella who is outmatched. That is the only reason no one will take me up on my straight forward proposal.

Your cowardice is astounding, particularly given how you conclude I am eviscerated and outmatched. I say let the evisceration and outmatching begin and let folks figure out who is willing to talk substance and who is just blowing smoke. Of course, you won’t take the challenge because you know as well as I do where you fall on that spectrum and you would rather others not be able to figure it out so easily themselves.

I also find it exceptionally ironic that you expect me to answer your questions and Masnick, yet you refuse time and time again to answer a simple question at the heart of the matter. You conclude innovators pay for innovation, but cannot bring yourself to even acknowledge the free-rider problem. How can you think you know anything about economics? Your ignorance is almost unbelievable. I don’t think for a minute you are ignorant, which has to mean you have an agenda. God help those who listen to you. Your arguments tend to help big-tech and continue the subjugation of individuals and small businesses.

-Gene

“I am growing tired of your ignorance.”

I think you are getting tired of being completely outmatched. It is evident to everyone who reads this that you are responding in a bizarre fashion.

“If you want a debate lets start with the simple question you keep ignoring. Who pays for innovation if we do away with the patent system, and will there be enough money to yield the same level of innovation that the patent system provides?”

Gene, how does your posing-a-question serve to justify IP law? The question is: is patent law justified? If you think it is, mount a case. Tie it in to your question about “who pays for innovation”? I mean the answer is obvious: innovators pay for it. You think the missing steps between your half-rhetorical question and your conclusion are obvious; they are not. If you will try to flesh them out you’ll see why. Go ahead.

I am growing tired of your ignorance. I offer to debate on terms where specific questions are asked and those same specific questions are answered by whoever is interested. Masnick does nothing to “eviscerate” me, and if you don’t know that then you are rather lost. So if you want a debate lets get to it. Since you, Masnick, Koepsell and others have completely refused to address the first point I raised I see no reason to respond to the diatribes that you and others are spewing.

If you want a debate lets start with the simple question you keep ignoring. Who pays for innovation if we do away with the patent system, and will there be enough money to yield the same level of innovation that the patent system provides? Of course we all know the answer, and we all know why you, Masnick, Koepsell and others refuse to answer this very simple question. If you are right then why be so afraid to answer the question?

I have no interest in educating you any further. My time is precious and I charge by the hour. So if you choose not to engage in a point-to-point debate as I suggest and start with answering the question you and others continue to dodge there is no point in going forward. There is simply no point in engaging in diatribe after diatribe and then claim that ill formed and illogical statements and arguments “eviscerates” anyone.

So why are you afraid of picking several questions and debating point by point with 300 to 500 word answers? You are afraid that in such a controlled experiment it will be to easy for everyone to identify the winner based on who answers the question and from those who actually answer the question (which would almost certainly only be me) who presented the best argument.

-Gene

This will probably come as a shock to you, but a fee for a service is NOT a tax.

On top of that, I believe we are now at over 50% of the users of the USPTO not being US citizens and/or US corporations. So those folks who do not pay US taxes are not US taxpayers. This seems pretty fundamental and obvious to me.

As for the budget shortfalls, they exist because of terrible mismanagement of the USPTO during the last 5 years of the Bush Administration. Innovations that should have been patented were rejected and big companies were able to obtain patents on a variety of crap. The allowance rate was driven down to 42% and the Patent Office obtains 70% of its revenue from continuing payments to keep a patent enforceable (i.e., maintenance fee payments). There are no maintenance fees paid on patent applications that are rejected once and for all and never issue.

You are finally right about something. The patent system has been a drag on the economy because the USPTO has not granted enough patents and forced a lot of start-up and small businesses to lose investors. I know you are saying that a functioning patent system is a drag on the economy, which is false pure and simple. No one has “elucidated” otherwise.

I find it odd that you and others who are railing at me keep ignoring the central question that I have asked repeatedly. Obviously you have no interest or ability to answer the question because you and others know if you did you would have to acknowledge I am correct and you are wrong.

Finally, all of the mistakes you make in this short comment demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Opinions are fine, but uninformed opinions are dangerous, and your is terribly uniformed. Did you even know that those who are not US taxpayers use the US patent system? Do you realize how ridiculous it is to say a fee for a service is a tax? Do you know that almost no patents enjoy their full term because of failure to pay maintenance fees? Do you know that many patents enjoy a term of ONLY 4 years? Do you know many more enjoy a term of ONLY 8 years? Your arguments are based on incorrect and incomplete information, yet you have the audacity to question the truth of what I am saying? Why not try and inform yourself before you make such factually ridiculous statements.

-Gene

“So, when a peaceful company, minding its own business, independently creates various products and services, and is sued out of the blue for patent infringement based on a patent they never heard of, based on ideas they independently came up with, they are wrong-doers? they are tortfeasors?”

“ANSWER: Absolutely. Just because you do not like the law doesn’t mean it is not the law.”

Gene, of course it’s the law. But not ever violation of the law is a tort. What, exactly, is the “tort” committed when someone runs afoul of statist patent law? Are you sure you are a licensed attorney?

“Patent laws do not allow for independent creation as a defense.”

Except for when they do, as in the prior user defense for business methods.

Anyway, why shouldn’t the law allow for this?

“Nothing you are I say will change that,”

Yes, Gene, I am aware that I am not Emperor of North America and that my “sayings” don’t “change” the law.

“Independent creation is not a defense and wishing it were and acting like it is demonstrates an extremely naive view of the world.”

Who does? Is your position so weak that you can do nothing but embarrass yourself by attacking strawmen?

“You cannot begrudge others from using the tools at their disposal,”

Yes…that’s why I help others get patents. Which you seem to begrudge me of.

” and that is what the anti-patent crowd does. If they don’t want patents fine, they will simply be targets. That is their choice.”

Yes, targets of the statist, immoral, unjust law that you support. How magnanimous of you.

“ANSWER: Of course there are costs brought to bear by the patent system. Even if those costs are more than the benefit I would not agree with your view, partly I think because we are looking at it from different perspectives. We can conduct the analysis you suggest, and we should do just that. But we should also analyze what it would cost in order to come up with the innovation we want as a society absent a patent system. The cost of government funded innovation would be enormous.”

So… even if the costs exceed the gains, you would still be in favor of the patent system. Check.

“Peter-

I appreciate your comment, but I do disagree. Ask around about me. I have very few friends in big-tech and for most of the last 5 years I had few friends at the USPTO or in Congress. I continually write the patent system is broken, needs to be fixed and is not accomplishing the Constitutional mandate. I don’t think anyone that looks at my body of work could fairly say I have a biased view of the patent system, save one situation. I do admit to being strongly against doing away with the patent system.”

oh, just that? Wow. I see.

“Lets get on with the debating.”

You keep saying this while refusing to engage. Masnick has it right–he eviscerates you, and nails you completely to the wall: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0158056366.shtml

You mixed up what I said. Those who use the system pay a fee, which is a tax. Are they not taxpayers? Aren’t we all also clearly subsidizing the entitlements of all the bureaucrats at the PTO as well? Why is there a budget shortfall? The fees aren’t working. The systems costs a lot, and furthermore, it is drag on the economy, as elucidated so clearly by others above.

My mind is intact, thanks.

-d