The Difficulties of Patent Busting

wheresjim writes "An article on CNN.com entitled 'Tough road for patent-busters' describes the hard road one has to follow to get a questionable patent revoked. According to the article, of the approx 7,000,000 existing patents, only 614 have been revoked, and only 3927 have had their claims narrowed."

Comments

Re:Don't like pop-ups? Read the article HERE!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting posting history you've got there!

An Alternative Path

[serutan]

"Good luck," said Paul Ryan, Acacia's chief executive. "Their chances are pretty remote."

The comfortable smugness of this modern-day pirate really galls me. I wonder how cocky he would be if he drove home one night after a hard day's work and found a pile of smoking rubble where his house used to be? Or if his car blew up in his face one morning when he turned the key? I'm not threatening or advocating doing any of these things, but surely thoughts like these must be going through the heads of many borderline psychotics, who feel that the world they live in is essentially being stolen piece by piece, in plain view and with the full support of the government.

The only reason people get away with this kind of crap is that they know they can depend on a certain level of civil behavior on the part of everyone else. They seem to feel that as long as they perform all the legal technical details correctly, nobody can touch them. They are like people who step purposefully off the curb with nary a glance at the traffic, confident that as pedestrians they have the legal right of way over cars, and therefore nobody can possibly run over them.

But there is a limit to people's willingness to bend over and squeal like a pig. At some point the possibility of getting caught and going to jail is not enough of an inhibitor. As acts of political terrorism become more commonplace, I think we are going to start seeing acts of domestic terrorism against individuals who flaunt their abuse of the system. I don't look forward to living in that type of environment, from a moral standpoint I can't say that I will completely blame the terrorists.

Re:An Alternative Path

[foniksonik]

Whether you like it or not this "modern-day pirate" has the right of law behind him. If you don't like it you need to organize against him and his kind. With today's networking capabilities, no one, nobody, no group - has an excuse.

What you are describing in terms of actions which may take place to express frustration with the status quo are no different than those of extreme PETA groups, violent demonstrators against WTO and yes, the PLO, IRA, Al Quaeda and other political militant groups, ie: 'terrorists' who have decided to take action without regard to civilization, civility or the accepted rule of law as we and our ancestors have decided will govern and structure our way of life.

Acknowledging and supporting public and common law can not be equated with 'willingness to bend over and squeal like a pig'. You defame and belittle a system of law which has been in place for over 200 years and it's predecessors from centuries before.

Public disobedience does not and should never equal violence or violent acts against groups or individuals. In a democracy or a democratic republic there can be no good reason for violent revolt. The system itself gaurantees enfranchisement for legitimate citizens whom can decide what direction law and government will take.

Just because your desires can not be met this year or next or this decade or next, this century or next... does not mean you have no power... it does mean that the majority of enfranchised citizens who are politically active disagree with you and continue to do so... until they agree with you, so keep using the right to free speech to express your views and if they have merit they will eventually persuade the majority to your side. If you can't persuade the majority then live your life as you choose within the law, ie: be vegan, be an informed consumer, vote with your wallet, peacably demonstrate.. etc.

The difference between your rights and those of the people of Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia is that you can express yourself without fear of retribution as long as you do so peacefully. Violence has no part in a country wherein the leadership has been elected, even if you believe deception was involved somehow.

The people will not stand for true deception, while misrepresentation has been embraced since day one... exemplified in "All men are created equal", except slaves and women... because they were not 'citizens' at the time, not owning land... this has changed as 'citizens' realized their error. In a similar fashion we all will come to the best possible conclusion in all aspects of life. It may take time and a changing of the gaurd, as in civil liberties and other fundamental issues, people hold opinions far beyond their validity or use... give it time to adjust.

From a moral standpoint I condemn violence which achieves incremental change. Better to revolt completely and achieve a fundamental change than to cruelly punish those who are simply trying to live within the agreed upon system.