Comments on: An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd! http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/ Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:41:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: SmumBoano http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-7944 SmumBoano Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:02:34 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-7944 adult personals with pictures <a href="http://loveepicentre.com/" rel="nofollow">speed dating</a> free adult personals web cam sevice http://loveepicentre.com/ asian singles los angeles adult personals with pictures speed dating free adult personals web cam sevice http://loveepicentre.com/ asian singles los angeles

]]> By: Dave Brown http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-4765 Dave Brown Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:07:37 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-4765 Most of these patent lawyers are just feeding off inventors, just like invention submissiom places do. Patent are nothing more than the goverment taking your money again. If the average guy gets a patent by spending most of what he has then its infringed he cant afford to litigate. These damm lawyers 500 an hour. I know because Im in this situation. In big need to talk to someone who could help Most of these patent lawyers are just feeding off inventors, just like invention submissiom places do. Patent are nothing more than the goverment taking your money again. If the average guy gets a patent by spending most of what he has then its infringed he cant afford to litigate. These damm lawyers 500 an hour. I know because Im in this situation. In big need to talk to someone who could help

]]> By: Science Report » Blog Archive » Patent Lawyers: Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-3735 Science Report » Blog Archive » Patent Lawyers: Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:48:37 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-3735 [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...] [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...]

]]> By: Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! | Austrian Economics Blog http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-3713 Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! | Austrian Economics Blog Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:01:30 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-3713 [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...] [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...]

]]> By: Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-3698 Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:10:15 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-3698 [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...] [...] The truth is most patent attorneys are in favor of patent law. Why is this? They have no special knowledge about its normative validity. Rather, they are self-interested, and have been subjected to positivist, statist, empiricist propaganda in law school. Quinn tries to turn this defect into an advantage by hogging to the biased patent profession the right to pronounce on these matters–and then ejecting from the profession anyone who bucks the union line. The patent bar of course lobbies for the system that butters their bread. They claim special knowledge to pronounce that the system is “necessary” for innovation, even though they have no proof of this. (See below.) They marginalize non-lawyers as not having enough expertise to weigh in. And anyone who does have expertise is ostracized if they point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. They remind of leftists who will not tolerate an African American who opposes affirmative action–they impose their supposed “benefit” on him by force, which is bad enough, and then use this imposed “benefit” to silence his criticisms of it. Terrible. (See An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!.) [...]

]]> By: Stephan Kinsella http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-3359 Stephan Kinsella Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:28:41 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-3359 Ace: "It’s simply not true that “most patents are held for defensive purposes”. A U.S. patent is, by its very definition, an exclusively offensive weapon." Not true. It may be used in a countersuit against someone suing you for patent infringement. This is a defensive use. "A patent confers to its holder the authority to prevent others from doing what is described in the patent. A patent does not, in any way shape or form, authorize its holder to do what is described in the patent. This is because doing so may substantially rely on the use of some previous patent." Yes, this is patent 101. In saying patents may be used defensively I in no way implied they give permission to practice the patent. Not directly, anyway. "Kinsella’s distinction does nothing to enlighten the debate on IP, and appears to be simply a rationalization for the activities of an anti-patent patent lawyer. " The problem is your entire comment is based on simpleminded confusion about what a defensive use is. Ace: “It’s simply not true that “most patents are held for defensive purposes”. A U.S. patent is, by its very definition, an exclusively offensive weapon.”

Not true. It may be used in a countersuit against someone suing you for patent infringement. This is a defensive use.

“A patent confers to its holder the authority to prevent others from doing what is described in the patent. A patent does not, in any way shape or form, authorize its holder to do what is described in the patent. This is because doing so may substantially rely on the use of some previous patent.”

Yes, this is patent 101. In saying patents may be used defensively I in no way implied they give permission to practice the patent. Not directly, anyway.

“Kinsella’s distinction does nothing to enlighten the debate on IP, and appears to be simply a rationalization for the activities of an anti-patent patent lawyer. ”

The problem is your entire comment is based on simpleminded confusion about what a defensive use is.

]]> By: Ace Baker http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/12/an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-3358 Ace Baker Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:13:47 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1518#comment-3358 It's simply not true that "most patents are held for defensive purposes". A U.S. patent is, by its very definition, an exclusively offensive weapon. A patent confers to its holder the authority to prevent others from doing what is described in the patent. A patent does not, in any way shape or form, authorize its holder to do what is described in the patent. This is because doing so may substantially rely on the use of some previous patent. I have no doubt that patent attorneys attempt to argue otherwise. Obviously patent holders (such as myself) would love a guarantee of being allowed exploit their inventions. But a patent is no such thing. In reality, construing the enforcement of a patent as either "offensive" or "defensive" is mere semantics. In all cases, people enforce their patents because they wish to stifle their competitors. Kinsella's distinction does nothing to enlighten the debate on IP, and appears to be simply a rationalization for the activities of an anti-patent patent lawyer. -Ace Baker (holder of U.S. Patent 7586031) It’s simply not true that “most patents are held for defensive purposes”. A U.S. patent is, by its very definition, an exclusively offensive weapon. A patent confers to its holder the authority to prevent others from doing what is described in the patent. A patent does not, in any way shape or form, authorize its holder to do what is described in the patent. This is because doing so may substantially rely on the use of some previous patent.

I have no doubt that patent attorneys attempt to argue otherwise. Obviously patent holders (such as myself) would love a guarantee of being allowed exploit their inventions. But a patent is no such thing.

In reality, construing the enforcement of a patent as either “offensive” or “defensive” is mere semantics. In all cases, people enforce their patents because they wish to stifle their competitors.

Kinsella’s distinction does nothing to enlighten the debate on IP, and appears to be simply a rationalization for the activities of an anti-patent patent lawyer.

-Ace Baker (holder of U.S. Patent 7586031)

]]>