Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Released List of Top 10 Patent Receivers
prostoalex writes "So who received the most patents in 2004? Despite the frequent publicity around Microsoft's or Amazon's frivolous patents, these two companies are not even on the list. IBM, Matsushita and Canon received the most patents in 2004, followed by HP, Micron, Samsung, Intel, Hitachi, Toshiba and Sony. IBM alone was granted 3,248 patents last year."
They seem to be making all the right moves... thousands of patents, contributions to Open-Source... Jeez. They might be on to something here.
IBM is notorious for making people write papers and patents as part of their job description.
Vote for Pedro
I don't understand how one corporation can have 3,248 original ideas.
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899
Remember, these companies actually innovated something.
And if you're wondering what the hell Matsushita is, well, they basically own everything.
Working with these two companies closely (lots of PSP and big screen TVs delivered this year), there is one thing that I've noticed with regards to these two companies.
Matsushita is the good guys. They license their technology out at very low prices, and if a competitor invents a similar technology, they are very unlikely to bring down the weight of their patent portfolio on them.
Sony, OTOH, is the typical portfolio protector. They are very difficult to work with because their tight-fistedness with patents and IP means that everything they do needs to be negotiated and agreements have to be made between many different IPR holders just to come up with a new product.
This is also why Matsushita (Panasonic, if you didn't know) is almost universally loved and Sony continues to put out shoddy merchandise.
it would be more interesting to see the top 10 software patent list
I knew a guy who did an internship at IBM - I think he helped do internal IT for their boxes. Anyhow, while he was there, he was showing someone a neat trick he did with the init system on the linux boxes, so that it'd start up an interactive shell on a different terminal as soon as possible. The advantage being that if some process held up the boot, you could fix it (ie kill -9). I think dhcp was a big culprit on the distro they were using.
Anyhow, his boss recommended that he get a patent on the change.
So, I'm not too surprised to see them on the list.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
Why are people still railing on Amazon? Other than the controversial one-click patent a few years back, what have they done? I just think it's a little farfetched to be putting Amazon into the same "evil empire" category as Microsoft.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
No mention of individuals; just Authors and Inventors.
What?
That and a culture of research and development.
You get a lot of smart people, ask that they publish, and watch what happens.
Add that to the understanding that licensing is just free money for stuff you don't feel like building yourself, and it's very smart.
My mom says I'm cool.
Not even on the list. My, how times change.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Considering that patents time out after 17 years I almost agree with you. That's not time for a change in top management to make a thorough change in corporate culture.
But don't lose track of the fact that you can't trust IBM. You can only kind-of trust the people that work for IBM. It's not as bad for IBM to have the patents, because they don't have a rabid rat corporate culture. But that is subject to change. By both sides (though Bill would have to die first).
Still, the fact remains that if there exists a centralized point of control (as, for example, a patent) then it will tend to be siezed by someone who will use it to their personal advantage, and wil ignore any damage they are doing to others. (In fact they may cause damage on purpose in order to reduce the ability of others to compete.)
So patents are, given human nature, inherrently evil. I'll agree that this is a contingent fact, but what it's contingent on is human nature, and that doesn't seem to have changed significantly since language first appeared.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you follow the link to USPTO from TFA -- here -- you'll see that the US Govt. has 829 patents for 2004. I find it interesting how/why a government can patent things.
Anyone can explain why the US Govt. patents stuff?
Doomie
3,000+ patents.
Does the USPTO have time to review all of these patents for accuracy/authenticy?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
No idea if this has been mentioned yet, but I ran across an article yeterday that says that IBM is donating 500 of its software patents to the open source community.
Here's hoping this ends up being more than the symbolic public affairs move it resembles on the surface.
Um, yeah, right. Ok.
inventor
n : someone who is the first to think of or make something
And:
author n.
1.
1. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
2. One who practices writing as a profession.
2. One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.
So, tell me. Is it possible for a corporate entity to write a book? Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"? No, I didn't think so. A corporation is a composition of the skills of it's aggrigate members.
The problem here is that corporations are allowed to act financially like a "person", when indeed they're no more a person than a country is a province/state.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Why link from itfacts.biz when you can get the same data and a bit more write-up directly from the source? (See the source link on the itfacts.biz site.)
:wq
While looking into this for a post on my blog I came across the same numbers. IBM donating 500 patents seems really lame when they got 1300 this year alone and have led the US for the PAST 12 YEARS. I know IBM is a linux friendly company, but they are still a company and they are still patent happy. Now, it could be that they are protecting themselves from other people patenting their technology but still, it is interesting. I made the analogy that IBMs release of those 500 patents is the technological equivalent of picking through their garbage: they obviouslly don't have use for it anymore.
I have always been taken aback by the argument from my fellow libertarians in favor of users fees. If there is any part of society we don't want operating on greed, it is an institution that has the ability to back up its rules with lethal force and the depravation of liberty and property. Take a good look at what the USPTO is doing today and look at what it used to do when it was paid for with tax revenues only.
I think there is a good libertarian case for why user fees are a terrible idea. I personally favor the use of consumption taxes as an alternative since they are the best of both worlds. They tie the government's revenues to the health of the society and yet they keep the government from gaining a financial incentive to disregard quality of service and ethics.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The top patent recipients are actually innovating, leveraging their R&D power and making progress instead of leveraging their lawyer power and hindering progress in legal battles.
Interesting. So, how many patents does IBM have, all in all?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Good point, the only things IBM is involved in are desktops and laptops.
TartanBlue
So patents are, given human nature, inherrently evil. I'll agree that this is a contingent fact, but what it's contingent on is human nature, and that doesn't seem to have changed significantly since language first appeared.
Reading this for some reason made me come up with a possible correlate. Even if it is not in human nature for _ALL_ people to be greedy (which is the subset of evil that I believe this thread is covering) it would only take a small number of greedy people to start taking advantage of the system. Once they start taking advantage of the system (patents in this case) they then give themselves an additional adge which allows them to take even more advantage, giving them an even larger edge, untill some other mitigating factor comes in to play.
I suppose this concept is strongly supported by the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" in which any shared limited resource will eventually become overexploited, in this case the resource being ideas. Tragedy of the commons is often thrown about in social sciences, eccology and economics and provides an interesting viewpoint on creating government decisions. I say government because by the nature of reality, the individuals involved will never come to an agreement; some judge or authority has to step in and draw boundaries and limits.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
However, have you noticed that in the above post, the pertinant linkage did not go to prostoalex's site? That's the difference.
IBM has been filing patents for many years, and has maintained more or less the same level over the years. On the other hand, four years ago, we did not hear much about Microsoft filing patents. So, their absence in the top 10 is not all that surprising.
How would IBM use its patents? How would Microsoft use its patents?
True, I dislike all patents. I'd rather have a perfect system of government where patents had a lifespan of, say, six months.
But in the real world, I approve of any method of using and abusing government and governmental power, so long as it's by somebody I like. Patents are a loophole in a sense, but loopholes are tools, and like guns or axes or computers, the user defines the tool, not the other way around.
So, patents cannot be evil any more than guns can. But Microsoft can definitely be more evil than IBM.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I think you mean "sarcasm".
How ironic that you don't know the meaning of ironic.
So you're saying that his post *did* contain irony after all, right?
Remember PanIP?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The most innovative patent this year, I'll bet!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"?
Yes, at least legally speaking, that is in fact the very definition and raison d'etre of a corporation. Basically, it it defines a group of people as a seperate entity from its members, bearing legal rights as though it were an individual. The term corporation is derived from Latin meaning "to be a body" where body, in legal terms again, means an individual.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Read the dictionary section of the US Code.
What?
I think you mean "sarcasm".
No, I mean "irony".
How ironic that you don't know the meaning of ironic.
You're being ironic, right?
Corporations are considered "the good guys" if their corporate culture involves building goodwill through being a good corporate citizen. Goodwill can be monetized as the value of a corporation's trademarks.
Well, technically, a corporation is a legal "person" of its own. Pays taxes, has legal rights and obligations etc. This is why corporations can be sued directly, and also why corporations themselves can sue.
And why they can be put in jail, and even executed when they themselves kill?
Corporations are not people, regardless of the legal definition (along the lines of Mississippi(?) passing a law that the value of pi equals three, doesn't make it true). No corporation has *ever* invented anything. That's because it's impossible, only people (and presumably some other animals) can actually 'invent' something.
There's a difference among a tax-funded agency, a user-fee-funded agency that takes nearly zero tax dollars, and a negatively tax-funded agency. The USPTO is negatively tax-funded; Congress siphons off patent fees to the general treasury. If the USPTO were allowed full use of application fee revenues, it could probably hire examiners to do a more thorough job of checking each patent application against the prior art.
Yes, at least legally speaking
Which was never the point. The point is to point out the absurdity of confusing a corporation with a person.
The following is what has happened:
1. In order to facilitate productivity for limited and specific purposes, people were allowed to form a corporation, being granted status similar to that of a person.
2. To gain more power, corporations exploited that status to gain rights they were never meant to have.
3. Time has passed, and now it's normal to think of a corporation as a natural entity, worthy of rights equal to that of a person, and any attempt to point out the absurdity of such a claim is met with, "but a corporation is a person, legally speaking!".
...when somewhat useless obscure things get patented, it hopefully means that it will be public domain by the time that anything usefull comes out of it... :)
-judging another only defines yourself
Here's the thing:
The dictionary section of the U.S. code was written after the constitution. Therefore, unless it was approved as a consitutional ammendment, it can't possibly alter the meaning of the constitution from "plain english circa 1780ish".
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I can't resist mentioning this silly episode.
:: "cook").
In July 1992, I was attending an IEEE 802.11 meeting. The company I worked for at the time was making a major series of presentations - "coming out of the closet", as it were, after many months of revealing nothing whatsoever about their WLAN development program.
At one point, the presenter (a colleague of mine) was asked, "Your error correction scheme seems extreme. Do you really think interference in the 2.4 GHz band is going to be that bad?"
My colleague pointed to me (in the audience) and asked me to repeat a remark I had made during a coffee break, where I said, "Well, I've never seen such a thing as a Listen Before Cook microwave oven!"
("Listen Before Talk" was a new phrase coined by one of the committee members to defuse more silliness of arguing over the term "carrier sense", which had a somewhat different meaning to RF engineers as opposed to Ethernet engineers. I found the analogy appropriate -- i.e. "talk"
I got a brief chuckle from the committee, but no mention in the meeting minutes, so the event was lost in obscurity.
However, years later, I was searching for a particular kind of patent for a microwave oven invention I had in mind, when I came across:
Patent No. 6,346,692: "Adaptive Microwave Oven". In brief, this patent describes an invention wherein a microwave oven "listens" to the 2.4 GHz band before turning on its magnetron, on a cycle-by-cycle basis, so as to avoid interference with RF communications in the same spectrum. I.E. "Listen Before Cook." The patent was awarded in 2002 to two persons (presumably) employed by Agere Systems, since Agere is the assignee for this patent.
How's that for prior art?
P.S. My "other" microwave oven invention had to do with "listening to the sound of popping corn" to determine when the pop rate was declining, thereby determining the right time to turn off the oven, avoiding the Blackened Redenbacher Syndrome. Sadly, I was beat to that particular punch -- a broader patent existed that covered "auditory feedback" in controlling microwave oven operation.
What you don't hear about is that fact that to file a patent, one must present the idea in front of a committee (called an Invention Evaluation Board) which does an initial search on the idea and evaluation of business value, then the patent lawyers do their own internal search (before sending to the patent office), then you write up the patent with a lawyer (all the time modifying to take into account any existing work), then IBM sends the patent to the patent office so the patent office can do it's search.
By the time IBM sends out a patent, it's already gone through an exhaustive evaluation by very intelligent people. Patents cost a lot of money to file. IBM has no interest in filing useless patents. And yes, there is a culture that if an idea seems at all novel then file a disclosure because we have such a strong process in place to determine if that idea should become a patent.
And is IBM using it's portfolio to do negatively? Nope. Patents are a necessary evil. Any large company has to file patents to protect itself. Being that IBM is the largest technology company in existance (320,000 employees, revenue of $86 billion a year), it's only fitting that it files the most patents.
Despite the frequent publicity around Microsoft's or Amazon's frivolous patents, these two companies are not even on the list.
It's not the quantity that matters, it's quality and topic. I mean, I don't suppose anyone minds when some company developes something useful and patents the stuff. I suppose the most of the granted patents are hardware-related, which -if it's so - I can highly appreciate and have nothing against. The reason so many people complain regarding MS-related (or Amazon, and the like) submitted and/or granted patents are the sometimes even ridiculous nature of what they seem to want to patent (just rememeber "ifnot" and the like).
Eh, but most of you already know all this so you know, I just felt that I have to drop my 2c.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
It is PR because a lot of free software users think well of a company that is apparently doing its best to support free software against the scourge of software patents. But how many of these do know that IBM has been and still is at the forefront of political lobbying for more software patents in the world?
Making free software depend on IBM patents, and making the defense of free software against lawsuits depend on IBM willingness to assert those patents against whoever would sue free software developpers or users (see the IBM pledge : http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpa tents.pdf) gives IBM a lot of leverage on whatever happens with free software.
Furthermore, free software has been able to compete successfully with Microsoft, and to contain to some extent Microsoft software power, a thing no corporation was able to do, including IBM.
From an economic perspective, when two economic activities are complementary, and actually done by different corporations, each business sector will try to commoditize the neighboring business so that more money and profit remain available for its own activity. Commoditization of complementary business is also a way to reduce its control, and to be freer ans more secure when it comes to managing a business strategy.
This is the case for software vs services, or for hardware vs software. IBM business is mostly based on hardware and services, and software publishing is only a minor part. But software stand between the two main business activities of IBM, and gives too much leverage to whoever controls software publishing, not to mention the profit. Supporting free software is a way of commoditizing software, and thus leave more control space and profit for IBM. If in addition it gives IBM some control over basic software (especially the operating system), all the better.
So it is IBM best interest to actually get software patents and the control that goes with them, and to make some of those patents available to free software developement.
But, mind you, it is certainly not a gift or a donation. Just good business strategy.
I've found that Sony in general is milking a brand-name... but that cow is beginning to run dry. I haven't seen many sony products that - were they even the same price of their competitors (they're more) - I would buy on a quality basis. They make a lot of stuff that might be considered trendy. Asian students here especially seem to think Vaio is the shiznat, though really the last few of those I saw died sooner and generally sucked more than competitors (no, I'm not racist, my gf is Chinese and between her and her friends I've had my work convincing them that Sony != good).
On the other hand, I won't say I know too much about Matsushita, but I haven't done too badly by their Panasonic division.
I've often wondered about this. This trick I suppose would work well on a Linux box... but IBM doesn't own linux. Can you put a patent on doing something a particular way with a product you don't have ownership over?
If a hack a certain device (say find something really cool to do with a cellphone/PDA/etc that the creators hadn't planned for it), can I patent that even though I didn't make the original device?
Not that I have such a patent, but I've often wondered if this happens.
Patent or Perish
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less travelled by. (Robert Frost, 1916)
If anything, I think that this article shows IBM's donation of 500 patents as a drop in the barrel (though a nice gesture nonetheless). However I do remember that there can be 2 reasons for patenting something:
a) Personal profit based on royalties, etc (or preventing a competitor from reproductions)
b) Not having a competitor patent something. You don't personally have to enforce the patent against somebody... but in the end it's a useful trump card (if somebody applies their own patents against you, you can play yours back) as well as a nice way to reward your allies (if you hold the patent and share, somebody else can't sue your friends over them either).
and patents arent a bad thing.
in the hands of the ex-college kids, they are exclusive patents, to which only they have the rights (or the company they sell the patent to). IBM on the other hand tends to have those patents where its like "isn't this a neat idea? give it a shot!"
usually im more coherent, i just got off cs:s after playing fer like 6-7 hours, lol
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Okay, I guess that came about a little different than my _ACTUAL_ beliefs. Yes, in legal terms a corporation has all of the rights of an individual. Now, I don't necessarilly think that is morally or ethically right. But according to the legal system that the United States is under, a corporation has all of the rights that an individual is granted. And from what I've seen, a corporation really don't have the burden of what an individual has to carry. Feel free to infer what you will.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
This is sad.
If a corporation is a person just like me, that's pretty bad for me.
I have only two hands while a corp. has many. Sure they will beat me. vajk
When will a corporation do jail time, and how ?
They don't have 3128 good idea. What typical happen in tec. company is patent everything and see what pan out.
IBM and Microsoft can be equally as evil really. There is no difference on who receives a patent.
:)
Now IBM politics are in favour of free sw just because IBM is now making money out of Linux and Microsoft is losing money because of it.
Whenever it will be the other way around, we'll be all here crying for the evilness of IBM and how M$ could save us all. Really think about what could've happened if OS2 was the winner and Windows the loser.
Probably what now seems so absurd could have been reality.
Patents are evil, whoever receives them. And they are evil both for free sw and for proprietary one. And they are evil both for sw as for hw.
We feel sw patents being more evil just because of the peculiar qualities of sw (being a product with almost no additional costs other than those of the creation of the first prototype), but really hw patents are as evil and sometimes as stupid.
Check behind your Nokia phone, the Sim retention mechanism. Do you really feel that thing needs a patent ? Do you think its mechanic is so smarter to be granted a patent ? Do you feel that patent is much better than the "single click" Amazon patent ? [Don't know if it has been granted the patent and if it's still that kind of mechanism, the last Nokia I had was the 5110 and had two pieces of plastic with the simplest mechanic of this world patent pending]
I think we, as a society, should reconsider the whole patent system. It's effectiveness is changed in its 200 years of life, and its dangers too. Patents were meant to protect IP and R&D investiments, now it's becoming a mean to convert ideas into money without the risks involved in production.
Long post sorry
Certainly not ALL of them. Last time I checked, corporations did not have the right to vote or hold a public office. Not officially, anyway.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
At between 9 and 10 patents per day, does anyone know if IBM gets a bulk discount on its fees?
However, have you noticed that in the above post, the pertinant linkage did not go to prostoalex's site? That's the difference.
It does. Do a whois on itfacts.biz.
Actually, the Constitution is to be interpretted "in the original intent of its authors," without necessarily any regard to what "plain english" might have been at the time.
What?
It seems /.ers associate the word "patent" with evil. Any company enforcing their patent rights is automatically evil. Well that is just a load of crap. It is true that the patent office needs to completely rethink its patent granting procedure, but without patents the global bussiness model breaks down and we all lose our jobs! That being said...
/. readers dont seem to understand is that patents are not cheap. You need to pay an expensive patent attorney, and the application costs. In the end, a patent frequently costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Add to that the price of R&D and man-hours, and each patent can reprsent over 1M in corporate investment (or much much more).
In many way's IBM is a thinktank. They spend alot of money in researd and development of new technologies. For crying out loud, the PC owes much of its success to IBM R&D.
Why should other companies be allowed to use technologies and ideas that IBM spent time and money developing? Im sure you wouldnt like if I told your boss about an idea you had discussed with me, and passed it off as my own.
IBM makes 650 Million USD on patent royalties annually. Nearly 200M of which comes from hardware manufacturers. Most companies happily pay IBM their royalties. Why? Because they make alot of money from selling technology using IBM-developed ideas. IBM usually charges 1%-5% of the products price as a royalty. Not bad, considering without the IBM patented technology, your product might not be marketable!
Many other companies ($CO, for example), demand high royalties from small companies. IBM, on the other hand, supports open source and has yet to go after a non-profit or small company.
One company IBM *IS* going after is Intuit. Who the hell cares? Does Intuit donate a percentage of its income to charity? Do they feed the hungry? NO! Intuit exists to make its CEO, stockholders and employee's money.
Finally, another thing that
In conclusion, leave IBM alone until they try to patent the letter "A" or UNIX.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
There are three basic kinds of irony.
1. Dramatic Irony
2. Situational Irony
3. Verbal Irony (aka Sarcasm)
I'm sure that there are other ways to classify different kinds of irony, but a high school English class can only go so far.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
No small (or even large) concern can realistically claim to have not infringed a patent for anything modern and nominally (or more) complex.
That to me is the biggest flaw to the system.
Yesterday I noticed that a simple plastic bag had been patented. I was looking at the bag to see find it's recycling logo, and there it was. Some patent number. Now, this wasn't a fancy ziplock or super-ultra freezer bag with teflon air foils or anything. This was your regular grocery store plastic bag. Not even one with holes for handles. Just a plastic bag.
See this interesting writeup on the "everything has been invented" myth.
Registered to registerfly.com?
Well, anyways, if that whois stuff eventually traces back to the person (I don't see it here but maybe it does on some site) then that's not cool.
On this note, sorta, I wonder why slashdot editors don't link the user's name to their slashdot URL (http://slashdot.org/~user) ?
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
A corporations legal status as a "person" is an interesting choice for the government to make, but it's not completely out of line. It's basically a "crowd". Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
Jimmy Carter, 39th president. 1977-1981
3 9. html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc
Yes. Reagan was elected in Nov'80. You don't start the instant you are elected.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There's nothing much more official than the smell and color of money, unfortunately. :-/
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Many of the companies listed (IBM, etc.) actually DO innovate, and use the patent system the way it was intended. IBM rarely tries to sue infringers of their patents out of existence - They (and MOST other companies) are smart enough to know that it's better to negotiate a reasonable licensing agreement.
Unfortunately, it's the abusers that open up immediately with a lawsuit that give the system a bad name.
A family member of mine worked for Lucent's intellectual property division. For them, it was considered to be a last resort to take a patent assertion to court. 99% of the time there was a behind-the-scenes licensing (often cross-licensing - "I let you use my patents, you let me use yours") agreements.
Lucent has clearly gone downhill over the years. In the past, they most likely would have been on that list thanks to Bell Labs. Lucent/AT&T used to spend a LOT of money on R&D, including very forward-thinking basic research. Those expenditures brought us things like the transistor (which is generally considered to be an IP licensing success story - The transistor was licensed out VERY reasonably.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Have you ever studied a software patent to see what knowledge was revealed or "made patent" by the patent?
That was the original intent of the patent system, or at least the ostensible original intent. (I've gotten cynical about politics.) But the USPTO no longer adheres to that standard.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
And treating a crowd just like a person is scientifically retarded. Most of your argument has nothing to do with mine.
Ummm... A corporation, when you come right down to it, is nothing more nor anything less than a bunch of people (investors, employees, etc.).
"Nothing more"? Are the posters on slashdot a corporation? No. A corporation is a legal entity to describe, define, and organize a group of people. It's like saying a baseball team is nothing more than a group of people. It's a certain type of group of people plus the rules and structure of baseball.
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
I've never argued that a group of people can't own or invent something collectively or cooperatively. But, the corporation "IBM" never invented anything. It's impossible. The employees (who aren't necessarily even members of the IBM corporation (ie: they have no ownership of IBM)) do the inventing. Yet IBM, the corporation, gets the rewards of the inventions. My post was meant to point out that we give IBM and Matsushita, etc, credit for all of their "inventions", when the actual inventors (for whom you'd want the patent system to protect) don't get much protection, in effect, at all.
you are a damn idiot
No, but you're both an idiot and a coward. Look up the word "irony".
Be gone, pathetic, cowardly idiot.
Now tell me again that patents are in place to protect the "little guy" from the big corporations.