Best
21 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    I agree. It indeed was an excellent, informing and well written article. Khanna has never wasted my time here. His articles are concise and relevant. I wish he were here on a full time basis ( editor-in-chief?).
  • #9
    !
    I also agree great article by Derek. this is a tough balancing act to get right. loser pays might get rid of patent trolls but may give the big corps an advantage.
  • #8
    !
    I'm just glad you didn't say patent trolls else you would have been in clear violation of patent law and the use of said term.
  • #20
    !
    I think that it is cool when someone has an original design or idea. I have a buddy that has been designing his own mountain bike and I just hope that he can patent it and take credit for his own design. He has been putting a lot of time and effort into it for the past few years and he has already made a few test bikes to see what he needs to improve.

    Jason|http://www.patebaird.com /
  • #18
    !
    We have gone much to far beyond any sensible system of patents. The whole system should be changed and many of the patents should be thrown out and any damages awarded related to them should be returned adjusted for inflation and with interest at the prime rate.
  • #15
    !
    I didn't have space to give a background on everything, but Wikipedia has a pretty good run through. Copyright --> content creation (terms = life+70), patents --> inventions (terms=20 years), trademarks --> brands for consumer protection (terms = indefinetly). That's the 5 second elevator version, it obviously gets more complicated from there.
  • #6
    !
    The author writes: "Patents are in one sense the right to disclude and limit the rights of others to compete in the marketplace. "

    This is false. Patents don't prevent anyone from competing in the marketplace. They prevent others from profiting directly from another's invention. There is no right to the fruits of another's labor.

    There is only one right: the right to your own life. You don't have the right to another's life.
  • #13
    !
    Patents aren't the fruits of another's labor. They're the fruits of government incompetence. Patents fight against innovation, by taking the innovation by force from its inventors and giving it to patent trolls and big companies. Patents are a symbol of the essence of government. Their whole purpose is to fight against productivity and in favor of parasites whose expertise is in manipulating government to favor the parasites over the producers. Some people work for a living and some people fight for a living. Those who fight, use the government as their main weapon, thereby making work less valuable, and expertise at government manipulation more valuable.
  • #16
    !
    Economists sometimes call it a negative right because it is the right to disclude. For the guy who patented podcasts and is suing people for creating podcasts, is that not potentially limiting the rights of others to podcast?

    The Founders referred to copyright/patents as monopolies because there was always a cost associated with each. A benefit to be sure, but a cost as well.
  • #19
    !
    What happens when you come up with an idea and somebody else uses it? Have you suddenly forgotten the idea? No. You still have the idea. It's not like stealing money or even a sandwich.

    I can see the importance of making sure innovators are rewarded. However, the patent system is ridiculous and over broad.

    Furthermore nobody should have the right to come up with an idea and then use a patent to prevent all future progress. A "shall-accept" price should be determined so that if there are people who can build on the idea they will be able to do so after adequately compensating you.
  • #1
    !
    This was a good article. I knew a business owner who had a nursery...bit of an engineer this guy, who developed a spring system for the wheel on wheel barrel. As soon as he set it up on his website...boom rubbermaid tells him they have a patent for the same thing.
Post