Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:26 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Legal Well, this is kind of funny. Steve Wozniak, still an Apple employee, has defended Paul Allen and patent trolls in general. "I'm not at all against the idea of patent trolls cause I've had friends who just got forced into bankruptcy by bigger people who had more money and could have a lawsuit against them, forced them to be their own lawyers, and in the end, sometimes they're victorious. But it's a real hard way to do it. So if you're going to have a patent and say 'It's worth some money, I'll sell it', well, even if Paul Allen makes a fortune off of it, I think he had the insights to recognize which patents were valuable." Apple is one of the companies Allen is suing.
Thread beginning with comment 439080
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The term "patent troll" is meaningless...
by tomcat on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 01:47 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Whether or not you like patents is irrelevant. That's the system here in the U.S., it was created via our Constitution, and Congress has the power to regulate the USPTO as it sees fit. Want to change it? Great! Get started. Collect a huge chunk of money from your geek friends, and lobby Congress. Because complaining about patents is useless, unless you're willing to do something about it...

{Oh, and by the way, I'm skeptical that lobbying Congress will get you anywhere. There are very entrenched interests with extremely deep pockets who like patents a LOT.}

Reply Score: 2

alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

Democracy fail :-).

Reply Parent Score: 2

igf1 Member since:
2008-11-17

Patents will see an abrupt turnaround in the near future. People are starting to catch on to the reality of what the insane nature of the system is doing to the economy... Truth be told, patents are nearly useless to the startup/inventor. They only serve trolls, deep pockets and IP Lawyers. The point you make of the Constitution, is an argumentative slight of hand (and a weak one at that), in an attempt to make the modern form of patent insanity seem, somehow, patriotic. The two sentences you, and your ilk keep referring to, could also be subject to the interpretation as Congress MAY allow it, IF it's limited and regulated. It;s not a right BTW, it's not an amendment, it's a little blurb... just as slavery was... just as the 5/8 of a human being was etc..


(Oh BTW If you're one of those

Reply Parent Score: 4

alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

I find it unlikely that the current patent system in the US is going to change. There's big money to be made there and the people who can afford to do lobbying are not going to pass such a great opportunity.

It's not in the best interest of consumers, technology and development, but the kind of people who decide on this things do not care about consumers, technology or development -- their idea of "long term" spans only as far as "retirement",

Edited 2010-09-02 05:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Patents will see an abrupt turnaround in the near future. People are starting to catch on to the reality of what the insane nature of the system is doing to the economy...


I think you're kidding yourself. There are LOTS of inefficiencies in our economy -- inflated union wages, bogus laws and restraints on trade, taxes, affirmative action requirements for govt projects, etc -- and the problem is almost too incomprehensibly big and futile for people to even get a handle on. People don't have any idea how patents are connected to inefficiencies. They tend to be product-focused, and don't care about the details. So, I completely disagree with your assertion.

Truth be told, patents are nearly useless to the startup/inventor. They only serve trolls, deep pockets and IP Lawyers.


Again, disagree. Tell that to Eolas or Stac or any number of smaller plaintiffs who have prevailed over industry Goliaths.

The point you make of the Constitution, is an argumentative slight of hand (and a weak one at that), in an attempt to make the modern form of patent insanity seem, somehow, patriotic.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never suggested it was "patriotic" to support patent law. Just that it's futile to bitch about a system without somehow WORKING WITHIN THAT SYSTEM TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE. You seriously think that the supposed "superiority" of your argument is going to, in itself, bring about change? That's the disconnect I'm talking about.

The two sentences you, and your ilk keep referring to, could also be subject to the interpretation as Congress MAY allow it, IF it's limited and regulated. It;s not a right BTW, it's not an amendment, it's a little blurb... just as slavery was... just as the 5/8 of a human being was etc..


I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate my argument. Let me break it down again: First, Congress has the power under the Constitution to regulate inventions/patents. Period. You can't argue with that statement. Second, Congress exercised that power and created the USPTO. Third, and as I said in my original post, Congress has the power to UNDO anything that it's already done. All that it's going to take is for geeks such as yourself to band together, raise enough lobbying capital to push through change, and then celebrate.

I'm not debating the "patriotism" or "usefulness" of patents. As I've noted, smaller plaintffs have benefitted from patent protections (not just trolls), there is a system in place which would need to be changed via LEGISLATION, and if enough people care about the issue, they can bring about change. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Which means that bitching, while satisfying on an emotional level, doesn't amount to squat, if that's all you have.

Reply Parent Score: 2