Profiting From A Vague Patent HOWTO

tunabomber writes "IEEE Spectrum has an in-depth article about the rise of Acacia Research Corporation and its plan for enforcing its patent on 'Digital Media Technology' (which seems to lay claim to any technology that transmits audio or video digitally for entertainment purposes). You may recall that there was a story on Slashdot over a year ago about Acacia's threats and subsequent lawsuits against some small adult entertainment companies regarding their violation of the patent. There was also an Ask Slashdot posted a while back by the owner of one of these companies who had received a letter from Acacia Research demanding that they pay licensing fees. Both Slashdot stories asked how long it would be until Acacia went after the big media companies. Well, they finally did last week. It appears that Acacia just had to get enough companies (Disney and Virgin Radio, among others) to pay licensing fees before they could afford a legal adventure against the big guys. DirectTV, Comcast, Echostar, and Charter Communications are some of the defendents. Let the fireworks begin!"

Comments

Profit!

[Mz6]

Profiting From A Vague Patent HOWTO -- from the step-2:-patents dept.

Some HOWTO this was... I have the 2nd step, but I thought this would answer that elusive 3rd step, but it was no help at all.

1. Obtain vague patent
2. Enforce vague patent
3. ???
4. Profit!!!

Re:Profit!

[thedillybar]

>1. Obtain vague patent
>2. Enforce vague patent
>3. ???
>4. Profit!!!

After all the articles we've read, there is clearly 1 superior way to profit. Everytime I've seen someone make one of these, this one applies. Same method. Everytime.

1. Become a lawyer
2. Profit

Talk about being in high demand? There will ALWAYS be some rich asshole who wants to sue another rich asshole.

Re:Profit!

[Timesprout]

WTF sort of profit scheme is not in a vertical list?

Re:Profit!

[Echnin]

How often they leave things to immigrant nurses and don't check back until they've given the patient twice the amount of a drug they should have.

Because the fact that the nurses are immigrants is so relevant. Obviously an American-born nurse would be so much better. Those damn foreigners.

Re:Profit!

[torokun]

This shows how fucking blind you are to reality. Jeez, man. Think! I said 'immigrants' because they can't speak fucking English!

How well do you think they can communicate with my grandmother, who's from Cape Cod and only ever been to Scotland in her whole life? Not well, I can tell you. It seriously pisses me off when you suggest that there's no objective difference between an immigrant in an extremely sensitive position such as a hospital, and a native English speaker.

That's bullshit. She could never get things across to the nurses she had. I don't care how much you pull the wool over your eyes, there is a difference.

This is reality, man. Not some fucking liberal paradise. I have nothing against people because of their race or where they came from. I have something against a system that puts people in a position they shouldn't be in for practical, objective reasons.

Wait a second...

[XCorvis]

Someone should patent the method for profiting from vague patents... then sue everyone profiting from vague patents.

"some small adult entertainment companies"

[mirko]

Are there really some companies dedicated to entertaining dwarves ???

Re:"some small adult entertainment companies"

[Zocalo]

Of course there are companies dedicated to Dwarf related entertainment, but they are a bunch of tossers.

*Grabs popcorn*

[Walkiry]

In the age of digital cluelessness in the patent office, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. It's hard to even tell if it's a win/win situation, because if they really go all-out on something as general as "patent of a device that broadcast digital entertainment" (paraphrased), the amount of heads that will roll in the process will make the french revolution look like a cakewalk in comparison.

Meanwhile, the sharks are rubbing their collective fins at the prospect, and ironing their armani suits no doubt.

Re:*Grabs popcorn*

[EvilTwinSkippy]

A lawyer, as sailor, and a priest are trapped on a lifeboat. The sailor looks over the side, and say "These be shark infested waters." The priest look to heaven and asked "Help save us lord!"

They lawyer simple whistled. Several dorsal fins stopped circuling and headed right for the boat. They stopped in a ring as the lawyer talked to them in hushed tones. The sharks skattered underwater before the boat was suddenly lifted up, and surged forward.

The sailor gazed over the side, shocked. The sharks were carrying the boat on their backs. After a few minutes travel, they spotted land ahead. The priest said "Saint's be praised."

The boat slid onto the beach, and the three men stepped out. As they did another school of sharks appeared, and began depositing fish on the shoreline, before swimming away.

The priest said, "God has answered our prayers."

The lawyer turned and said, "Nah, this is just professional curtesy."

Prior art

[csoto]

There are an umber of "ASCII art" utilities out there that "streamed" images to teletypes and terminals way back when. Some pretty racy images at times, too ;)

Re:Prior art

[91degrees]

Were they compressed, stored, transmitted and then decompressed? And were they audioand/or video files? Looks like this is what's needed.

So you need to see if the first ever digtially transmitted compressed audio or video file predates this patent.

I suspect it does. There must have been countless zipped audio samples on bulletin boards by 1992.

Re:Prior art

[missing000]

Not only that, but modems in that age almost universally compressed content on both sides of the pipe.

That would appear to make my online chess playing qualify as prior art.

Re:Prior art

[ronaldb64]

Were they compressed, stored, transmitted and then decompressed? And were they audioand/or video files? Looks like this is what's needed.

So you need to see if the first ever digtially transmitted compressed audio or video file predates this patent.

I suspect it does. There must have been countless zipped audio samples on bulletin boards by 1992.

There sure was. Remember the Commodore 64? There were tons of "demo's" out for them, doing stuff with a C64 it was never intented for (try and get that picture out of your head). Most of them sported soundtracks, and definately had something aking to video.

Unless my memory is failing me, that was in the mid-80's. And one of the main distribution media for those files were BBS's... Can Mr. Rogers say 'prior art'?

Re:Prior art

[Short Circuit]

I had a dream:

Ten years from now, I'll be working in a large data center running primarily on UNIX variants. The company tour guide will lead his group in on the balcony, and will say, "Here are prime examples of the Berkeley Long-Hair. It's just about their feeding time."

Then the dumb waiter opens and there's some pizza...

Patent enforcement

[Roryking]

Is it just me or do these issues only seem to happen when some no-name corporation "remembers" that they somehow invented a wide-sweeping technology? It seems that when legitmate corporations enforce patent/copyright for things they actually invented from the get-go, nobody questions it. Is it human spirit to "take what you can get when they're not looking" or are these bozos just out to make a cheap buck?

Re:Patent enforcement

[hackstraw]

Is it just me or do these issues only seem to happen when some no-name corporation "remembers" that they somehow invented a wide-sweeping technology?

Yeah, that seems about right. Patents are simply broken. Their intention was to promote innovation, yet I cannot think of an example recently (past 50-75 years) where innovation happens as a result of patenting something. If anything, it actually hinders innovation.

The infamous laser patent went on for almost 20 years. I don't know of the benefits Gould got by winning the patent, but lasers have become ubiquitous. Look at how many things we use every day that have lasers in them. Bar code scanners, CD players/burners, fiber optics, laser pointers, etc etc. How much innovation would have come from lasers if there were some large tax on the technology?

Also, it seems as though the stupid patents are also the most profitable. Like the "one click" thingy, or Symbol's patent on a "bar code reader with a trigger". Yes, the next time you are at a store and you see a barcode reader with a trigger, odds are its a Symbol product. If not, the "technology" is licensed from Symbol. I used to work with hand held barcode scanners, and I've only used one that was not a Symbol. I don't see too much innovation in the "one click" or "triggered barcode scanners".

Another problem with patents, is that they do nothing to the "little guy" who patents something. First, the little guy probably has no means to mass produce the patented item, so what the hell is he innovating? Thinking of something and doing something are two different things. Also, if the little guy has a patent on something, it is up to them to defend it. This costs big bucks and takes considerable amount of time, two things a little guy does not have to spare. I laugh at those comercials where the people say "If I had a patent I'd be rich!" I doubt it. Most "self made" rich people are those that start their own business, bust their ass, and make it work (independant of patents).

Well I for one have found....

[StressGuy]

The audio/video feeds of SCO's copyright infringement lawsuits to be highly entertaining. ;)

Going after little guys first...

[PornMaster]

I think that the reason they went after the online porn industry was to establish legal precedent.

After all, in court, isn't it simple enough to find bias against people who "harm society" to make judgements not based on the rule of law?

-PM

Big guys?

[JimDabell]

It appears that Acacia just had to get enough companies (Disney and Virgin Radio, among others) to pay licensing fees before they could afford a legal adventure against the big guys.

Since when are Disney and Virgin not considered big companies?

dumb and obvious Q for the IANAL among us...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say this company files suit against Comcast, et al, and other big media behemouths. Comast et al will argue in court against the validity of the patent being awarded. Assume they're successful, and the patent gets tossed. What recourse does this company's previous licensors have? Are they capable of reclaiming their money?

Re:dumb and obvious Q for the IANAL among us...

[jkabbe]

A smart attorney would probably require a clause in any licensing agreement that would void the agreement if any claims of the patent are voided by the USPTO or a court. Otherwise, no, you're out of luck.

My vague patent

[beef3k]

1. Patent "digitally transferring text for any purpose at all".

2. Have wet dreams about email royalties from Yahoo, Hotmail, *starts slobbering*

3. ????

4. Drive the spammers out of business

5. Profit!

Yeah, breaks with the "Slashdot-profit-haiku" rules, but who cares.

What the patent system needs

[foidulus]

is an effective deterrent against bogus patents. IE you have to pay the patent office a lofty fine if your patent gets overturned in court. However, I can't think of a system that would:
a) get through the special interest dominated congress and
b: Be effective at making huge companies afraid of the fine while at the same time not intimidating legitimate companies from applying for legitmate patents.
Scylla and Charybdis...
And yes, I do think there are legitimate software patents, for example if this company had developed it's own compression algorithm, and unique, and very specific, distribution method, then they probably deserve a patent for it, but if they just say they invented distributing entertainment digitally, then there is no basis for the patent and they should be punished accordingly.

Re:What the patent system needs

[Rick.C]

you have to pay the patent office a lofty fine if your patent gets overturned in court.

A more effective deterrent to bogus patents would be for the USPTO to have to pay any damages and legal costs awarded by the courts for overturned patents.

As it stands, the USPTO has everything to gain and nothing to lose by rubber stamping everything it receives. If they had "some skin in the game" they would likely be more dilligent in their research.

Re:What the patent system needs

[octal666]

And yes, I do think there are legitimate software patents, for example if this company had developed it's own compression algorithm, and unique, and very specific, distribution method, then they probably deserve a patent for it, but if they just say they invented distributing entertainment digitally, then there is no basis for the patent and they should be punished accordingly.

I fear to say I agree with you, to a point, al least. I think a specific technology, software or not involved, should be patentable, the problem is not with patenting thechnologies, but when ideas are patented.

For example, the mouse, if you patent the mouse, you are patenting one implementation of a device to interact with the computer in a graphical way. If you patent a way to push a button, it's not a technology, it's an idea. Same with an algorithm, the encryption idea should not be patentable, a given algorithm should.

The patent for broadcasting digital entertainment is an idea, and seems to be like patenting the use of water for thirst relieving.

With all that vague patents, why anyone has patented the operating system yet?

Re:What the patent system needs

[burnin1965]

I disagree. If anything needs to be changed in the cost structure of the patent system it is the fees required to question a patent.

If we are going to have a patent system then we need a fee system that doesn't show preference to corporations with deep pockets, the little guy needs access as well.

In reading the publications from the USPTO I discovered that while the fees required to submit a patent are rather low the fees required to question a patent are significantly higher, something like 4 to 10 times if I recall.

It seems that the current system has incentive for people to file patents but not for people to question them.

Now to tell you the truth I don't really believe that changing the fee structure is actually the solution. What I think needs to be changed is what can be patented and who can patent.

An idea of how you COULD do something should not be patentable. It used to be that you had to bring a copy of what you intended to patent down to the patent office. Of course that is not a reasonable practice today, however, the idea behind this practice should still be enforced. The mouse trap itself should be patented, not the idea that you could build a device to catch a small mammal.

And patents should only be given to individuals who are in business to produce the patented device, whether that be a real human individual or a company. If an individual wants to be in the business of generating patents or holding patents then they need to make their money off selling off their patents to someone who INTENDS to actually produce something. This idea of hording large numbers of patents with the hope that someday one of them will become a windfall should be outlawed for the same reason that extortion is considered a crime.

burnin

Finally, a HOWTO that I can profit from...

[lacrymology.com]

I own the patents for the following vague ideas:

1) A method for translating program source code into a machine runnable format.

2) A method for displaying a computer's file system (see earlier patent for details) based on the top of a typical desk.

3) A number system based solely on the numbers 1 and 0.

4) A method for having sex with a computer (you know it'll happen one day... and when it does... I'm rolling in the cash)

Anyone have the number for a good (i.e. slimey) lawyer?

-m

I doubt it's as bad as it sounds...

[ncurses]

I did some googling, and they hold the same patent in Japan and Europe. It seems like Europe has a pretty good record of not approving silly patents.

I can't find the actual text of the patent. I tried searching the patent search engine dealy linked to in the original article, but I couldn't find it. Could someone link to it?

And the reason they call it a patent of a HOWTO is because I do not believe Acacia Research Corporation has actually implemented the streaming video stuff that they patented. I don't think it's as broad as it sounds, but it does sound a lot like patenting an idea.

Re:I doubt it's as bad as it sounds...

[Halo1]

There's no "European" patent office

This organisation thinks differently. And the granted European software patents on this page also indicate otherwise.

Each country within the EU has its own separate patent office, and its own separate patent laws.

Yes and no. They indeed all have national patent offices and patent laws, but those patent laws are all based on the European Patent Convention (EPC) from 1973 (which incidentally included the establishment the European Patent Office (EPO)).

Note however that the EPO is not an EU body, it lives completely outside the EU (there are countries who signed the EPC and which thus recognise the EPO, but which are not in the EU).

Some countries permit the patenting of software patents, some currently do not.

It's a bit more complex than that. First of all, when you go to the EPO and get a European patent, you can designate in which countries it should be valid. Since the EPO happily grants software patents, you can get software patents in all EU countries, regardless of the national patent office's practice.

However, when you want to enforce a patent, you have to do so before a national court in the country where you want to enforce it. When you look at this, only in the UK software patents have been successfully enforced in the general case. In The Netherlands for example, no-one has ever even tried to enforce a software patent. In Germany, software patents have been generally unenforceable until now.

Even if (when) the EU patent directive is introduced there still will not be a "European" patent office, or even a Europe-wide agreement as to what is and is not patentable.

Given that all EU countries signed the EPC, there actually is already a European-wide agreement on what is patentable and what not: see article 52 of the EPC. An EU directive cannot change anything to the EPC or the EPO however, since that these fall outside the EU. It can change things to the laws of the member states however, which means they can influence the enforceability of patents (as these have to be contested in front of national courts).

As you may have seen, article 52 EPC excludes computer programs, mathematical methods and business methods from being an invention (and thus from patentability). The catch is article 52(3), which states that those exclusions only pertain to the subject matter "as such". What this used to mean, is that you could never get a patent on something where the only contribution lied in one of those things (maths etc), but that otoh an patentable invention which also contains a computer program, does not suddenly become unpatentable

Since the EPO wanted to start granting software patents (their advisory board consists of corporate lawyers from IBM, Nokia etc, and they make money per granted patent), they changed that interpretation: now they say that this exlclusion means that e.g. computer programs not as such are patentable. Now what is a computer program not as such? A computer program executed by a computer, and to make it absolutely clear those are patentable, they call those "computer-implemented inventions" nowadays.

what is the desired outome of this ?

[giampy]

The more mess is created the more people will realize how broken is the software patenting system ...

I am almost hoping for a victory of Acacia in this, with the big players have to pay a lot o money and give Acacia even more strenght ...

what side do you stand for and why ??

Software patents for Open Source Only

[starfire-1]

Personally, I feel that software patents should only be awarded if the source code is open. Not necessarily GPL'd, but open in that your competition may have a legitimate opportunity to view the design.

Seventy five years ago, if you devised a new engine for a car, your competition could buy one, rip it apart and copy your ideas. So patents made sense. But in closed source software design, the products are black boxes that frequently can be describe only on more general terms. So we get these patent applications for abstract functions.

IMHO, patents should only be awarded if a company is willing to open its source code to an extent. It can still be proprietary, but there must be the legitimate opportunity for someone else to be able to "look inside" to see how it works. If a company want to keep it's code closed, fine. But no patent.

Just my two cents.

Re:Software patents for Open Source Only

[Halo1]

That's also the European Parliament's opinion: if you mention the use of software in your patent claims, you have to provide a reference implementation of this software according to them. Of course, that's just another thing that the Council threw out again...

Re:Software patents for Open Source Only

[Coryoth]

Patenting software is a bit like patenting unpublished novels. You get a patent for "well, the story goes sort of like this...", and get to sue anyone who has a story that is at all similar.

As you say, the source code goes unreleased and unpublished, so all you've got to go on is the vague description of how the "story sort of goes" to compare an potentially infringing story to.

Imagine if this was the standard for plaigarism (which is, admittedly, under copyright law, not patents, but that's mostly because you can't patent stories - if you could, believe me, plenty of people would). Madness.

Surely patents are for the implementation - didn't you have to provide actual design blueprints etc. if you were patenting a new kind of engine? If you have to patent it on that levl - that is, patent a particular set of source files (where obvious derivatives etc. would still be liable), then software patents might almost work. Then again, you'd largely be duplicating existing copyright law, and what would be the point?

Jedidiah.

Re:Software patents for Open Source Only

[karlandtanya]

When I was a kid in school, they explained patents to me this way:

If you invent something really cool, you should have a shot at making money off of it.

But--everybody else wants to use your really cool invention, too.

In the interests of fairness to you and to everybody else, the patent was created.

First, you have to tell everybody how to do what you did. You have to provide prints, drawings, an explanation of how it works, and demonstrate a working model of the invention.

Then you get your chance to make money--for a while.

After that, your invention becomes something that everyone else can build on and improve.--In fact, as soon as you submit the patent, everybody else can build on and improve your invention. They just can't actually use your invention until you get your chance to make your bucks.

This provides some incentive for inventors to invent. And some incentive for inventors to share their inventions.

This was only the explanation that was given to children. Maybe the real intent of patent law is to enable unscrupulous entities (corporate and individual) to keep the maximum amount of dollars and control for themselves.

Don't we have an organization whose job it is to tell us what the writers of those laws intended?

Are they on vacation? Or have they been bought?

Re:When the patent is ruled invalid...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well no. They couldn't have been sued and lost, because the validity of the patent would have been tested in court during their trial.

No, the people who would lose are the ones who settle. Since they didn't fight it, they basically said "here is free money, stop annoying me." Most settlements don't include agreements about if this patent should "go away." Though frankly, I would want to make sure my lawyer worked like hell to get it in.

Now I'm curious. Disney's lawyers are as infamous (or infamouse) as IBM's. What are they doing settling out of court for an iffy patent?

What if everybody would do the same?

[dtio]

Companies abuse the patent system by issuing patents on almost everythnig they can think of.

Take for example IBM. They have patented everything related to object oriented operating systems under their Taligent/San Francisco project.

They could sue Sun (J2EE) or Microsoft (.NET), and just anybody using things like Object-oriented window area display system, pat. no. 6,750,858, Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods, pat. no. 6,424,354 or Distributed object networking service, pat. no. 6,223,217, just to name a few.

Crazy. We have to figure out a better patent system which stills protect intelectual property but also protects us from this nonsense.

Re:With lawsuits being the "In-Thing"

[The I Shing]

Al Gore's gonna be suing over his invention of the Internet

This might be a bit off-topic, but my curiousity is piqued.

Where exactly can I find a reliable source that quotes Al Gore as having said that he invented the internet?

I mean, I read that, in 1999, he stated in an interview, "'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet," by which he meant securing funding for it, but nowhere have I found, outside of message board posts, that Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the internet itself.

I read that he told a House committee about the internet in 1989, remarking, "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses." Geez, what a crackpot!

this is good!

[zogger]

Really, this is GOOD. Let the big companies keep getting hosed by the patent system. Let them see how patenting IP and having closed source propietary software will constantly hose the ability to "do your work" and just keep costing money and money and money and money and be a serious PITA to actually DO anything. Eventually, doing anything even remotely fun, interesting, or productive will be so expensive that the system will crash and burn under it's own bloat. Let it become unprofitable to use patents and restrictive copyrights. Let them keepdoing what they are doing. The lawyers and licensing fees alone will start to make companies just stop being involved with it, eventually it might even get through to some legislators noggins that the patent and copyright system is completely broken and has been broken for a long time. It won't end until joe user all the way to joe big company needs to have a lawyer on a tether with them all the time, and just have their paychecks direct deposited to the lawyers account, and the lawyers cut you a small chump change allowance.

In other words, let it burn! I feel the same way about this as I do vulnerable windows machines. The quicker it gets to a ridiculous level of unusability level the quicker it can be fixed with a REAL fix which is a total replacement system, because sure as snot they won't fix it until then, just keep applying patches that just make it worse, because they refuse to address the core issue, which is intangible thoughts shouldn't be patented in the first place. It was an INSANE precedent to let the first intangible anything get patented.

Small hole to drive a truck through

[Gr8Apes]

Turns out one of the key objectives of this patent:

A still further object of the present invention is to provide a picture and sound transmission system wherein the selected audio/video material is sent over any one of several existing communication channels in a fraction of real time to any location chosen by the user that has a specified receiver.

Seems to me that all current broadcasters I know of that are listed in the suit fail to meet this criteria of sending the signal in a fraction of real time, and hence, bye bye lawsuit. I wish they would, but I have to record only one show at a time, during the broadcast window, and cannot record anything else during that broadcast window, hence, I believe they fail to infringe upon this patent. of course, the obligatory: IANAL.

Re:Suprised

[stratjakt]

The patent system is to provide a legal protection for inventions.

The problem is, it's been allowed to evolve in such a way that the whole system is now really only accessible to lawyers, not inventors or engineers.

If your friend was a lawyer - or had deep enough pockets to hire one - he'd have no problem getting a patent.

Prior art is mentioned in the patent!

[saintp]

From the patent text: "wherein the transceiver means receives the information via any one of telephone, ISDN, broadband ISDN, satellite, common carrier, computer channels, cable television systems, metropolitan area networks, and microwave."

They gave a list of 9 instances of prior art, right in the patent! Any time you stream media, this patent covers it. So, for instance, the telephone (invented 1876), the television (patented 1948), and "computer channels" (Z3 built in 1941) all operate primarily (exclusively!) by the means described in this patent.

Inconceivable!

Still, it should make the defense a little easier when Acacia has been nice enough to catalogue prior art for us! It's like shooting wealthy, very well-defended ducks in a barrel.

Yes, this was illustrated quite nicely...

[Chordonblue]

...in an episode of Kingdom Hospital. A civil lawyer comes into the emergency room with chest pains. One of the doctors says, "Wait a minute... He's a civil defense lawyer."

From that point on EVERYTHING is signed in triplicate, videotaped from every angle, and witnessed by at least three people. Funny, but I'd LOVE to see this sort of thing happen.

Re:Yes, this was illustrated quite nicely...

[Almost-Retired]

Yes, they could either do that, knowing full well the jerk is gonna have their ass in court because the broken finger didn't heal straight and they want evidence they did it according to accepted procedure, or simply refuse to service him. Either way, he/she is a liability they simply cannot afford.

That day is coming, the medical profession really has no alternative. Most of them have no problem with the real part of the damages if they screw up, but the awarding of punitives that are often 100x the real, or more, by a court system that thinks medicine should be absolutely infallible, all neatly defined etc etc, is the real shame of our american justice system.

Medicine, and its diagnosis and delivery are still more art, prior experience and instinct than hard fact, a situation thats slowly changeing with the ever less instrusive methods of seeing whats wrong inside the body coming online, but those methods generally cost money, lots of it. And they have to be paid for. If you are outputting 75% of the gross income in malpractice insurance, thats just that much less to spend on keeping uptodate, so its a self-defeating spiral.

If refusing service to a lawyer saves the potential of having the rates raised by another $100k next year, thats $100k that could be used as a downpayment on a cat scanner or similar gear. It makes perfect sense to me.

Cheers, Gene

And the history books will document...

[orbitor]

how the American economy, fat off the progress and profit made over the previous 120 year span, became so selfish and greedy that it ate itself in the early periods of the 21st century. At which time, it labouriously rolled over, farted, then died.

If you are reading this from any part of the world aside from the United States, you already know this history. Hell, you're living it. That's why you hate us. That's why you either shake your head in disbelief or merely point your finger and chuckle. You see the black muck that is the personification of the stereotypical American. From outside the bubble, man, that is one ugly sight.

No one can argue that it is sickening how members of a rich society are able to chuck their conscience and morality out the window and shamelessly take advantage of a hampered and flawed system. All this without a hint of concern on how their actions may be affecting the lives of millions of unwitting countrymen. But, what is often overlooked is the long term detrement these actions have on the American economy.

Based on this kind of crap, who in their right mind would ever consider basing a business, of any type or any size, in the United States anymore? Even the stallwarts of the ecomony are picking up and moving. Offshoring is a big a problem as most folks think it is, regardless of what the "industry insiders" have to say about it.

If asshole "business executives" and their brigades of lawyers are further allowed to get away with this type of behaviour, who is going to be left? Folks in the service industries, that's it. And they'll be catering to people from other countries who stopped by for a visit to see all the carnage. And where do you think these idiots who are causing all the problems will be? Not here, that's for damn sure. They'll be at their beach house on some remote island far, far away from the garbage they left on the curb.

This isn't about being conservative or liberal, black or white, rich or poor to us normal folks. This is about a few talentless nasty bottom feeders ruining the most powerful economy in modern history.

Well, gee, thanks. Maybe I can have a slice of apple pie with the dung heap you're feeding us. That should make it all better.

How long?

[lionchild]

So, how long do you suppose it'll be before they go after RIAA and MPAA? Now, that's a fight I might enjoy seeing. :-) Maybe we'll see it on Pay Per View?!

Idea: prevent resale of patents

[macraig]

Here's an idea whose time may have come: change patent law to prohibit original patent-holders from selling or even transferring their invention and patent; in other words, the value of the patent accrues ONLY to the original inventor. Isn't that what the creators of the patent system really intended in the first place? I haven't thought this through in too much depth yet, but at face value it seems to have the potential to prevent many of the worst abuses of the patent system. Wishful thinking or something more?