No word games at all. The trouble is that folks don’t like what monopoly means and would prefer to simply berate patents and use sloppy logic to do so.

I agree with you though when you say: “Most people use the word monopoly to mean that a person or entity has exclusive control.” That is the whole point, and is in fact what monopoly means. The trouble is that this is not what a patent grants, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not is inconsequential. A patent simply does not grant an entity exclusive control over the market, and a patent doesn’t grant an entity exclusive control over an invention. If you patent something and I improve it then I can prevent you from using the improvement. If you invent A that does Z that doesn’t mean you can prevent me from inventing B that also does Z. This is real, not an imaginary difference or based on word games. It is reality, and those who don’t like patents don’t seem to want to be bothered with the reality, which is unfortunate. Pushing a position that has no merit as a result of ideology means there is an agenda, at least in my opinion.

As far as the definition of “monopoly” go ahead an look in any dictionary you want and the definition will be the same. It is not the right term to use and excuse me for pointing out that the logic and language of those in the anti-patent movement is incorrect.

I agree with what you say in the last paragraph of your comment, except the last sentence. It is not ridiculous at all to say a person with a patent does not have a monopoly. That is reality whether you want to except it or not. The trouble is what a patent truly gives, which is exclusive rights for a limited time, won’t sway public opinion and rally to the anti-patent side. That is because the public at large agrees that inventors should be rewarded with exclusive rights for a limited time when they make an invention. Because overwhelming public sentiment is what it is the anti-patent movement has to distort the debate and use the term “monopoly,” knowing the public does not like monopolies. The intellectual dishonesty in the name of forwarding an agenda is sad, although unfortunately not uncommon.

-Gene

I see your point, however, I agree with the other commenters that you are just playing word games. You found a dictionary that has a definition of monopoly that you like, but a glancing look at any more mainstream dictionary will provide a definition that defies you. The dictionary argument is not a good defense in my book.

Most people use the word monopoly to mean that a person or entity has exclusive control. If I owned 51% of some companies corporate stock, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to say “he has a monopoly of shares”, because it correctly identifies that I would have exclusive control over the company. To tack on “and it has to make money too” is just silly. No market = no monopoly = no sense.

The point you were making, as I understand it, is that a patent probably won’t cover an entire market or product and that it won’t guarantee a return on investment or a profit, and I agree with that. To say however that the person doesn’t have a monopoly is just ridiculous.

The first thing I want to tell you is that at any inventor show you need to be careful. There are good shows run by good people, and there are good shows run by those who have checkered reputations. The invention community has many with good reputations and many with bad reputations, and at shows they are both likely to be there in the crowd. So whatever you do keep your senses about you and if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

Having said this, here are some shows I would consider:

Minnesota Inventors Congress — June 11 & 12, 2010
http://www.minnesotainventorscongress.org/InventionIdeaShow/tabid/82/Default.aspx

INPEX — June 16-18, 2010 in Pittsburgh
http://www.inpex.com/
NOTE: This show is run by InventHelp, but from those I trust I hear it is an excellent show and deals do get done because it is one of the largest shows and attracts serious buyers. Whatever your opinion of InventHelp is you should not, in my opinion, shy away from this show. Like any other show you just need to go in with a plan and be open, but cautious, as you should with any business dealing.

Lambert & Lambert also has a comprehensive list of trade shows broken down by subject matter at:

http://www.lambertinvent.com/tradeshows.php

I cannot vouch for these shows, but I do have a high opinion of Lambert & Lambert. I recommend that inventors give them a call to at least hear what they have to say. They are quite selective with respect to who they work with because they work on a contingency basis, and they focus on some stuff and not so much on others. It is worth a call though.

I hope this helps.

-Gene

Very true. One thing that has started to equalize the playing field a little at least is the increasing availability of patent litigators who undertake representation on a contingency basis, which means they don’t get paid unless they win or there is a settlement. In this situation there still needs to be enough money on the line to entice contingency representation, but such representation is far more available than it used to be.

If anyone is looking for contingency representation I recommend at least contacting Tara Williams. Her website is at:

a href=”http://www.ip-contingency-lawyer.com/tara-williams-intellectual-property-infringement-attorney” target=”_blank”>http://www.ip-contingency-lawyer.com/tara-williams-intellectual-property-infringement-attorney.

-Gene