I just so happened to stumble across an interesting article declaring me Patent Twit of the Week. Normally one would not be proud of being declared a “twit,” but I have to say that I am enormously proud of this recognition. It seems that The Center for a Stateless Society has declared me a patent twit. Yes, you read the name correctly. These folks are nothing more than anarchists who hold a grudge, which I realize is a redundant characterization. In any event, this is mighty high praise coming from an organization that describes themselves as a project “dedicated to building public awareness of, and support for, market anarchism.” So why do I care? Why do I even given them the time of day? It certainly isn’t to promote them or to even engage in a debate with them. I write only to disclose the biases of those who have an anti-patent agenda. With the ever building assault on intellectual property rights and patents in particular I think it is imperative that decision makers understand the positions and biases of those leading that anti-patent charge. Those leading the charge and cheering from the sidelines are anarchists who make up lies to support their positions and ignore facts. They would have us dismantle our patent system, our economy and our government. So allow me to expose the anti-patent movement for what is — utter nonsense.
It is time to put the cards squarely on the table and show for all concerned the philosophy of those in the anti-patent movement. Here is what they wrote about me:
Gene Quinn, a patent lawyer and IP-hawk, has recently challenged the anti-IP movement — in the tone of a belligerent drunk announcing he can lick anyone in the bar– to back up its contentions with facts and arguments.
A belligerent drunk? Quite interesting indeed. Not the kind of intellectual argument one would expect from those who say they want to discuss the issues with facts and logic. In any event, the article lambasts me for not having facts to back me up, but the author and those commenting find it necessary to belittle me with school-yard insults. How curious, and telling!
With the possible exception of David Koepsell, those in the anti-patent movement provide no facts, and when they do they are simply wrong. But this leads me to Mr. Koepsell. It was surprising to read him chiming in on the comment chain to this Gene is a Twit article. I must admit to having lost pretty much all respect for Koepsell. He got upset that I said those in the anti-patent movement are no different that Hugo Chavez, who wants to put an end to patent rights in Venezuela. Koepsell was right to take exception because while Chavez is many things he hardly supports anarchy. I guess I now understand why that barb was taken so personally by Koepsell.
In the comments to this Twit article, Stephan Kinsella, the infamous patent attorney who hates patents and thinks zero years of exclusivity is plenty fine for innovators, and presumably his clients as well, pointed out that in a comment chain here on IPWatchdog.com I took issue with folks who said that the Swiss never had a Patent Office. Apparently Kinsella doesn’t believe that my observation that the Swiss have had a Patent Office throughout the entirety of the 20th century was inappropriate or non-responsive. Excuse me, but Koepsell pointed out that in the early 20th century the Swiss, who were exceptionally innovative, did not have a patent system at all. Of course this is utter nonsense and historically untrue. I pointed out that the Swiss did have a Patent Office and a patent system and that Albert Einstein worked as a patent examiner and devised his theory of relativity while working as a patent examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.
The fact that the Swiss had a Patent Office throughout the 20th century is 100% true, well documented and easily verifiable by anyone who cares enough to seek the truth. But let’s not get mired in truth, shall we. The point is not that the Swiss have a Patent Office, but rather that the anti-patent anarchist fringe makes up facts all the time. They claim facts presented to them are non-responsive, they claim truth is fiction and they have to make up lies to support themselves. That is the story here, and beware to any who would be swayed by these pretenders. They will say outrageous and untrue things and then get upset and pout when someone tells the truth, sets the record straight and identifies real facts conclusively proving they lie or are reckless with the truth. Why would anyone take Koepsell or Kinsella seriously if they so carelessly and recklessly rely on provably false assertions as a base to support their major premise.
To demonstrate the depth of the delusional thought processes displayed by The Center for a Stateless Society allow me to direct your attention to another article on the website, which states the following:
Americans are already forced at the barrel of a gun to pay income taxes (the very legality of which has been placed in question by numerous individual researchers, but then all government laws are themselves illegitimate acts of arrogance; opinions of bureaucrats backed up by lethal force)…
This should conclusively display for all to see the lack of credibility and the depth of the intellectual dishonesty found in the anti-patent movement. It would appear as if they are not only anarchists, but they have absolutely no understanding of the law or the US Constitution and live in a fantasy world. The anti-patent folks who would dismantle the patent system are against everything. At least they cannot be said to discriminate. They hate everything and would prefer to dismantle the country.
Those who don’t know what to think, who are on the fence about the merits of a patent system and those who have yet reached conclusions for themselves need to take a long and hard look at the beliefs of those in the anti-patent movement. Do you want to be associated with such lunacy or trust the economic future of the US to the positions of those who think the government is illegitimate? That would be a very dangerous and reckless experiment indeed, particularly when historical evidence proves conclusively that a strong patent system is the hallmark of a strong economy. Simply stated, third world countries have no patent system, developing countries have weak but growing patent protections available and the economic powerhouses of the world have strong patent protections available.
Everyone who reads IPWatchdog.com knows what my position is — patents are essential to innovation. But you don’t have to take my word for it though, you can listen to one of the preeminent innovators of our time, Dean Kamen. Just yesterday Kamen was quoted yesterday in the Wall Street Journal explaining that a post-grant review system could be “catastrophic for a start-up or small inventor.” Kamen then went on to say: “You get this young guy who quit his job to make this gizmo and he shows up at the bank or to his father-in-law. The first thing the bank or venture capitalist will say is, ‘Do you have a patent?'” You see, patents are essential to raise funds, and without patents small businesses are targets of large corporations. Every small business should seek patents, and it is not a coincidence that large tech companies want to make it virtually impossible to get patents.
We can all pretend that there are no costs associated with innovating, but that is a fairy tale akin to the myths propagated by the invention scams. You simply cannot make money selling ideas, if it sounds too good to be true that is because it is too good to be true, and innovating, making inventions and taking products to market costs money, and frequently a lot of money even for simple gadgets. Without funding all you have is an idea, and no reputable businesses will pay you for your idea. The patent system is the great equalizer, and patents are essential to raising funds. This is a reality told every day, in ever city across the United States, yet the anti-patent advocates ignore this market truth, vilify patents and pretend they are not necessary. But these folks are the same ones that think all laws are illegitimate and that the consensus opinion is that income taxes are illegal. Do you really want to tie yourself to these folks? I know I certainly do not and I am proud to be vilified by them. I would never want to have anything in common with such demented thinking.