«

He’s the founder of Intellectual Ventures, basically the world’s biggest
patent troll. His company does nothing economically productive: all it does
is buy up patents, and use them to extract payments from companies trying to
be productive.

Still think the patent system is so wonderful?

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26/intellectual_ventures_bags_smartphone_patent/>

On Mar 27, 9:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> He’s the founder of Intellectual Ventures, basically the world’s biggest
> patent troll.

A bit like how many companies (such as ARM) acquire technology isn't
it?

> His company does nothing economically productive: all it does
> is buy up patents, and use them to extract payments from companies trying to
> be productive.

To their credit, they have come up with a couple of inventions
themselves.

> Still think the patent system is so wonderful?

No - it has some flaws that certainly need addressing, particularly
with patenting of generic processes, and the lack-lustre performance
of the USPTO in not adequately recognising prior art.

But again Lawrence, it's all very well to criticise, but how would YOU
propose to change the system?

In message <1fe60349-855a-438d-9611-
>, Simon wrote:

> ... but how would YOU propose to change the system?

Get rid of them.

On Mar 28, 12:30*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <1fe60349-855a-438d-9611-
>
> b9e5795e7...@v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Simon wrote:
> > ... but how would YOU propose to change the system?
>
> Get rid of them.

Universities and corporates rely on the funds generated by patents for
inventions they have developed. How do you propose to cover that short-
fall?

On 2010-03-28, Simon <> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:30Â*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <1fe60349-855a-438d-9611-
>>
>> b9e5795e7...@v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Simon wrote:
>> > ... but how would YOU propose to change the system?
>>
>> Get rid of them.
>
> Universities and corporates rely on the funds generated by patents for
> inventions they have developed. How do you propose to cover that short-
> fall?

Let the market forces Govern. And that was and idea.

Yes, Patents are the cousin of Copyright. Us humans seem to have a great
ability to lose the spirit of the idea.

In message <d01e7816-e092-498c-
a74d->, Simon wrote:

> On Mar 28, 12:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <1fe60349-855a-438d-9611-b9e5795e7...@v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Simon wrote:
>>
>>> ... but how would YOU propose to change the system?
>>
>> Get rid of them.
>
> Universities and corporates rely on the funds generated by patents for
> inventions they have developed.

Actually, less than 1% of patents make any money at all. The only ones who
benefit from the rest are the patent attorneys. And of course the
Government, through the collection of Patent Office fees.

On Mar 28, 7:38*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

> > Universities and corporates rely on the funds generated by patents for
> > inventions they have developed.
>
> Actually, less than 1% of patents make any money at all. The only ones who
> benefit from the rest are the patent attorneys. And of course the
> Government, through the collection of Patent Office fees.

That is a straw man argument. We are not talking about the *number* of
patents that make money (I'll assume your statistic is correct
however), we are talking about the *amount of profits* generated from
patents, which corporates and universities rely upon.

On Mar 28, 5:06*pm, Gordon <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote:

> Let the market forces Govern. And that was and idea.


What incentive is there for an individual to put their novel concept
into production, given that 'big widget company' can take your concept
and mass produce it, giving you absolutely nothing in return for all
your hard work?

Don't get me wrong - I believe there are some fundamental issues with
the patent system that must be addressed, but I have yet to see any
reason to completely eliminate it.

In message
<95243c82-ca17-4b78-872e->, Simon
wrote:

> On Mar 28, 12:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> <d01e7816-e092-498c-a74d->,
>> Simon wrote:
>>>
>>> Universities and corporates rely on the funds generated by patents for
>>> inventions they have developed.
>>
>> Actually, less than 1% of patents make any money at all. The only ones
>> who benefit from the rest are the patent attorneys. And of course the
>> Government, through the collection of Patent Office fees.
>
> That is a straw man argument. We are not talking about the *number* of
> patents that make money (I'll assume your statistic is correct
> however), we are talking about the *amount of profits* generated from
> patents, which corporates and universities rely upon.

There is a growing body of economic research showing that patents offer no
net benefit to the economy.

In message
<f124083b-4e19-4377-91b6->, Simon
wrote:

> What incentive is there for an individual to put their novel concept
> into production, given that 'big widget company' can take your concept
> and mass produce it, giving you absolutely nothing in return for all
> your hard work?

If people deserved to be paid in direct proportion to the amount of hard
work they did, then toilet cleaners would be the highest paid profession in
the world.