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