The conclusion seems to be that we can't have tablets or smart phones because every device violates someone's patent. See how the patent system encourage innovation?

Trying to have your cake and eat it too?

It appears that Apple could have agreed to cross-license its own vast patent portfolio and potentially avoided the patent suit. However, Apple apparently wants to keep its patents all to itself while minimizing royalty payments for the patents of others.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/73935.html

Bottom line: Had Apple SHARED their patents, there might never have been any lawsuit in the first place. Instead, they are probably more of a problem with respect to IP than a victim.

So the conclusion seems to be that when you have pity for a loser in a suit, your pity may be misplaced.

See how the patent system could have encouraged innovation if Apple had been willing to share rather than trying to keep their patents to themselves?

Even had Apple and the other big smartphone companies cross-licensed their patent portfolios, there would still have been a problem for innovation: a huge barrier to entry for any new entrant into the smartphone market.

Patents are evil.

Beeswax:

There are 35 cell phone manufacturers, including three large ones that entered the market in 2010. Considering the proliferation of new manufacturers, there is apparently very little barrier to entry into the cell phone market.

Prove that patents are evil.

If we cannot have tablets or smart phones, then why do we have tablets and smart phones, and the number seems to be increasing at least geometrically?

The last time I went into a Verizon store, they had two non-smart phones, and the rest were all smart phones, from at least four different manufacturers. Sam's Club now has an entire kiosk devoted to an array of tablets from multiple manufacturers, each touting that they are the best. The proliferation of tablets has led to round after round of incremental improvements, with no end in sight.

So, if we cannot have tablets or smart phones, why are there so darn many, each claiming that they are the best?

Alonniemouse wrote:

There are 35 cell phone manufacturers, including three large ones that entered the market in 2010. Considering the proliferation of new manufacturers, there is apparently very little barrier to entry into the cell phone market.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since I didn't say "cell phone", I said "smart phone".

Prove that patents are evil.

This site has done that, and cited outside research that has done that, repeatedly, Lonnie. Suffering from memory problems, Lonnie?

If we cannot have tablets or smart phones, then why do we have tablets and smart phones, and the number seems to be increasing at least geometrically?

Apparently they are all infringing tablets and smart phones, which we could not have if the law were perfectly enforced, Lonnie. The article on which you commented said as much, Lonnie. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Abusywax/Stephen Kinsella wrote:

I said: There are 35 cell phone manufacturers, including three large ones that entered the market in 2010. Considering the proliferation of new manufacturers, there is apparently very little barrier to entry into the cell phone market.

Stephen Kinsella said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since I didn't say "cell phone", I said "smart phone".

I'm sorry. I will rephrase that. There are 35 SMART PHONE MANUFACTURERS, including three large manufacturers that entered the market in 2010.

I said: Prove that patents are evil.

Stephen Kinsella said: This site has done that, and cited outside research that has done that, repeatedly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Suffering from memory problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

This site has never proven that patents are evil. Not even once. They have cited outside research that suggests there are situations in which patents may not be beneficial, but that has nothing to do with evil. Not all chases by the police are beneficial, but that does not make them evil. Not everything you do is beneficial, but that does not inherently make your actions evil.

An anonymous person said: If we cannot have tablets or smart phones, then why do we have tablets and smart phones, and the number seems to be increasing at least geometrically?

Stephen Kinsella said: Apparently they are all infringing tablets and smart phones, which we could not have if the law were perfectly enforced, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. The article on which you commented said as much, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

The article on which the anonymous person commented was an opinion piece. Other articles have pointed out that Apple has lost nothing, and neither has Apple stopped producing infringing tablets and smart phones. Indeed, there has not been a single manufacturer that has ceased production of allegedly infringing tablets and smart phones, and more are entering the market every year. So, the underlying statements that patents are stopping anyone from producing either internet tablets or smart phones is a lie.

Last Anonymous:

I believe you are in error with your 35 number. It appears that the actual number of smart phone manufacturers worldwide is closer to 110, though even that number is probably already outdated. I think I know where you got your information, but that source is woefully out of date because there has been an explosion of smart phone manufacturers in the last five years and that source has failed to keep pace. There are probably three times as many smart phone manufacturers now as there were five years ago. Since smart phones, like computers, are relatively simple to produce, it appears that what might cause the growth to stall is not patents, but a crowded market and the inability to make a profit. The same thing happened to PCs and laptops with subsequent consolidation of producers.

Abusywax/Stephen Kinsella wrote:

Who is "Abusywax/Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since I didn't say "cell phone", I said "smart phone".

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I'm sorry. I will rephrase that. There are 35 SMART PHONE MANUFACTURERS, including three large manufacturers that entered the market in 2010.

The UK market? I doubt that, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: This site has done that, and cited outside research that has done that, repeatedly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Suffering from memory problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

This site has never proven that patents are evil. Not even once.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

They have cited outside research that suggests there are situations in which patents may not be beneficial, but that has nothing to do with evil.

The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, Lonnie.

Not all chases by the police are beneficial, but that does not make them evil.

Some are beneficial, and as a rule the police here don't chase someone without an honest belief that there's a good reason to, Lonnie.

Not everything you do is beneficial,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

but that does not inherently make your actions evil.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen Kinsella said: Apparently they are all infringing tablets and smart phones, which we could not have if the law were perfectly enforced, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. The article on which you commented said as much, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

The article on which the anonymous person commented was an opinion piece.

What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? And why are you now referring to yourself in the third person, Lonnie? Suffering from an identity crisis, Lonnie?

Other articles have pointed out that Apple has lost nothing, and neither has Apple stopped producing infringing tablets and smart phones. Indeed, there has not been a single manufacturer that has ceased production of allegedly infringing tablets and smart phones, and more are entering the market every year. So, the underlying statements that patents are stopping anyone from producing either internet tablets or smart phones is a lie.

Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, Lonnie. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, Lonnie, which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

I said: I'm sorry. I will rephrase that. There are 35 SMART PHONE MANUFACTURERS, including three large manufacturers that entered the market in 2010.

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

35 world wide. Why are you restricting yourself to the UK? However, it appears that I was incorrect. It appears that there are more than 100 smart phone manufacturers worldwide and the number is currently growing at a rate of 2-3 per month.

I said: They have cited outside research that suggests there are situations in which patents may not be beneficial, but that has nothing to do with evil.

You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

The fault I have with your statement is that there had never been any evidence of collusion between these parties. In fact, the scope of patents has not been expanded by law in at least the last 50 years, but by the court system. You would need to prove that federal district courts, the CFAC, and the Supreme Court somehow colluded to expand the scope of patentable matter, and that seems like a significant stretch. So, if that is your criteria, then obviously not all patents are evil and given your criteria, likely very few are.

I said: Other articles have pointed out that Apple has lost nothing, and neither has Apple stopped producing infringing tablets and smart phones. Indeed, there has not been a single manufacturer that has ceased production of allegedly infringing tablets and smart phones, and more are entering the market every year. So, the underlying statements that patents are stopping anyone from producing either internet tablets or smart phones is a lie.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, Lonnie. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

When the various companies got together to create a standard for cell phones and smart phones, all the patents relating to the standard went into a pool and a standard license agreement was established that applied to everyone complying with the standard. What that means is that virtually anyone can make a smartphone and avoid issues with patents completely. Apple is the one exception. Apple decided not to throw their patents into the standards pool, leading to a potential for litigation.

Are there patents that apply to smart phones outside the pool? Of course. However, the courts have thus far seemed to favor very low royalties, which means that not only has the implied gridlock failed to happen, it is unlikely to happen in the future.

Another factor that will soon come into play, as it always does, is expiration of patents. The first smart phone patents were filed around 1990 and many of the base patents were filed throughout the 1990s. These patents are beginning to expire and will expire in greater numbers.

Given the EXPLOSIVE growth in smart phone manufacturers, and the relative dearth of lawsuits given the numbers of patents involved (except among the top five, who had all sued each other at one point), smart phone technology looks as though it will continue to expand and dominate world markets, supplanting the majority of non-smart phones.

Who is this person you keep saying is me? That is not my name. I wish you would cease. I also note that while you keep protesting that no one here is using that name, you have avoided stating that you are not Stephen Kinsella. So, just say you are not Stephen Kinsella and be done with it - unless, of course, you are, as someone has insisted to me. ;o)

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Who said that? I don't recall anybody in these comments saying "I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie.

35 world wide.

Classic pontification.

Why are you restricting yourself to the UK?

Because that was the scope of the original post, which linked to the BBC.

However, it appears that I was incorrect.

I've been telling you that for days now, Lonnie, yet it took you this long to realize it. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

Who said that, Lonnie?

The fault I have with your statement is that there had never been any evidence of collusion between these parties.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

In fact, the scope of patents has not been expanded by law in at least the last 50 years, but by the court system.

I said "greedy and corrupt public servants", Lonnie. I never specified a particular branch of government, Lonnie, and indeed you can find some in all three.

You would need to prove that federal district courts, the CFAC, and the Supreme Court somehow colluded to expand the scope of patentable matter, and that seems like a significant stretch.

I'm not aware of the UK justice system including "federal district courts" or a "CFAC", Lonnie.

So, if that is your criteria, then obviously not all patents are evil and given your criteria, likely very few are.

Non sequitur.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, Lonnie. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

Who said that, Lonnie?

When the various companies got together to create a standard for cell phones and smart phones, all the patents relating to the standard went into a pool and a standard license agreement was established that applied to everyone complying with the standard. What that means is that virtually anyone can make a smartphone and avoid issues with patents completely. Apple is the one exception. Apple decided not to throw their patents into the standards pool, leading to a potential for litigation.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as demonstrated by the graphic at http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/ Lonnie. And even if what you said were true, Lonnie, patent pools create artificial high barriers to entry, allowing a few incumbents to form an oligopoly that is scarcely better than a monopoly, Lonnie.

Are there patents that apply to smart phones outside the pool? Of course. However, the courts have thus far seemed to favor very low royalties, which means that not only has the implied gridlock failed to happen, it is unlikely to happen in the future.

How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, Lonnie.

Another factor that will soon come into play, as it always does, is expiration of patents. The first smart phone patents were filed around 1990 and many of the base patents were filed throughout the 1990s. These patents are beginning to expire and will expire in greater numbers.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since many of the most troublesome patents (by Apple, Nokia, and a few other companies) are considerably more recent.

Given the EXPLOSIVE growth in smart phone manufacturers, and the relative dearth of lawsuits given the numbers of patents involved

Classic erroneous presupposition. Recall that graphic, Lonnie. Everybody that's anybody is suing everybody else in the smartphone space, Lonnie, or hadn't you noticed?

Who is this person you keep saying is me?

You, of course, Lonnie.

That is not my name.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I wish you would cease.

What does your wish have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I also note that while you keep protesting that no one here is using that name, you have avoided stating that you are not Stephen Kinsella.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

So, just say you are not Stephen Kinsella and be done with it - unless, of course, you are, as someone has insisted to me. ;o)

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant non sequitur have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: Who said that? I don't recall anybody in these comments saying "I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]"

That was a statement you made in your post "Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax." Are you having reading comprehension problems again, Stephen?

I said: Why are you restricting yourself to the UK?

You said: Because that was the scope of the original post, which linked to the BBC.

The original post was related to GERMANY. There was not one mention of the UK in the original post. Suffering from reading comprehension problems again, Stephen? I do not believe there are any smartphone manufacturers in Germany, which is why I focused on worldwide.

You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

You said: Who said that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]." Are you suffering from reading comprehension problems AGAIN, Stephen? I said: The fault I have with your statement is that there had never been any evidence of collusion between these parties.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition.

Classic erroneous response to a statement requiring evidence from you rather than an irrelevant pontification.

I said: In fact, the scope of patents has not been expanded by law in at least the last 50 years, but by the court system.

You said: I said "greedy and corrupt public servants", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. I never specified a particular branch of government, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and indeed you can find some in all three.

I said: You would need to prove that federal district courts, the CFAC, and the Supreme Court somehow colluded to expand the scope of patentable matter, and that seems like a significant stretch.

You said: I'm not aware of the UK justice system including "federal district courts" or a "CFAC", [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You keep bringing up the UK. I am not sure why since the UK is irrelevant to this discussion. Getting past that, I am unfamiliar with Germany's patent system, so I am unable to speak as to how their patent system works. What I do know is that traditionally Europeans have had a more rigorous and narrow standard of patentability than the United States. It seems like it would be more difficult for the collusion you describe to occur in Germany and you have provide no evidence whatsoever to support your accusation.

I said: So, if that is your criteria, then obviously not all patents are evil and given your criteria, likely very few are.

You said: Non sequitur.

Classic avoidance syndrome. I challenged you on a factual basis and you respond by trying to divert attention. That hardly supports your case, Stephen.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

You said: Who said that, Lonnie?

You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]."

Why do you keep asking what you said, Stephen?

I said: When the various companies got together to create a standard for cell phones and smart phones, all the patents relating to the standard went into a pool and a standard license agreement was established that applied to everyone complying with the standard. What that means is that virtually anyone can make a smartphone and avoid issues with patents completely. Apple is the one exception. Apple decided not to throw their patents into the standards pool, leading to a potential for litigation.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as demonstrated by the graphic at http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/ [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. And even if what you said were true, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], patent pools create artificial high barriers to entry, allowing a few incumbents to form an oligopoly that is scarcely better than a monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I picked a random suit from the list, Kodak v. Samsung. That suit was dismissed in 2008! How out of date is this chart? I picked another suit at random, Apple v. Nokia. The suit settled, Nokia seems to have won even though they were the defendant. This chart is also for the entire world as many of the suits are in various countries in Europe. So the so-called "thicket" is a mish-mash of old cases and cases across multiple countries. I wonder what the chart would look like if it included only current cases and for one country? I suspect we would find a much smaller, less dramatic chart.

Your understanding of the patent pool is erroneous. The pool consists of the patents related to the smartphone standard. If you comply with the standard, you get access to all the patents in the pool. The goal was to make it EASIER for new entrants, preventing incumbents from forming an oligopoly. The pool seems to be having that effect, as dozens of companies have entered the smartphone field.

I said: Are there patents that apply to smart phones outside the pool? Of course. However, the courts have thus far seemed to favor very low royalties, which means that not only has the implied gridlock failed to happen, it is unlikely to happen in the future.

You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

How ironic that the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the ‘net for over a year now is filled with old cases and cases from multiple countries. Furthermore, the number of smartphone manufacturers has tripled in the last five or six years with new entrants constantly coming into the marketplace. Gridlock? Hyperbole. Explosion of entrants seems more approporiate.

I said: Another factor that will soon come into play, as it always does, is expiration of patents. The first smart phone patents were filed around 1990 and many of the base patents were filed throughout the 1990s. These patents are beginning to expire and will expire in greater numbers.

You said: Irrelevant, Lonnie, since many of the most troublesome patents (by Apple, Nokia, and a few other companies) are considerably more recent.

Okay, prove it. Show where these patents are "considerably more recent."

I said: Given the EXPLOSIVE growth in smart phone manufacturers, and the relative dearth of lawsuits given the numbers of patents involved

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Recall that graphic, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Everybody that's anybody is suing everybody else in the smartphone space, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or hadn't you noticed?

Except, the lawsuits are dying down. The chart you keep referencing is filled with old and settled cases, or hadn't you noticed? If the remaining lawsuits are a deterrent, why are more and more companies entering the market?

I said: I also note that while you keep protesting that no one here is using that name, you have avoided stating that you are not Stephen Kinsella.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted] There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I said: So, just say you are not Stephen Kinsella and be done with it - unless, of course, you are, as someone has insisted to me. ;o)

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Your response is not a declaration, but an avoidance of the question, Stephen.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant non sequitur have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who said that? I don't recall anybody in these comments saying "I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]"

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

That was a statement you made in your post "Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax."

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Are you having reading comprehension problems again, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

The original post was related to GERMANY.

The BBC is a British news agency, Lonnie, not a German one. Suffering from geography problems, Lonnie?

There was not one mention of the UK in the original post.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? There was a link to the BBC's website, Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems again, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I do not believe there are any smartphone manufacturers in Germany, which is why I focused on worldwide.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who said that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]."

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Are you suffering from reading comprehension problems AGAIN, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I said: The fault I have with your statement is that there had never been any evidence of collusion between these parties.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Classic erroneous response to a statement requiring evidence from you rather than an irrelevant pontification.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

You said: I said "greedy and corrupt public servants", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. I never specified a particular branch of government, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and indeed you can find some in all three.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: I'm not aware of the UK justice system including "federal district courts" or a "CFAC", [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You keep bringing up the UK.

Because the original blog post was a pointer to a BBC news article, Lonnie.

I am not sure why since the UK is irrelevant to this discussion.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Getting past that, I am unfamiliar with Germany's patent system, so I am unable to speak as to how their patent system works.

Germany's patent system is irrelevant to the UK, Lonnie.

What I do know is that traditionally Europeans have had a more rigorous and narrow standard of patentability than the United States.

And yet they have allowed a number of software patents to be granted and enforced, Lonnie. It seems that, when it comes to patents, even "rigorous and narrow" means overly-broad and innovation-hampering, Lonnie.

It seems like it would be more difficult for the collusion you describe to occur in Germany

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

and you have provide no evidence whatsoever to support your accusation.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Classic avoidance syndrome.

What does your avoidance syndrome have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I challenged you on a factual basis and you respond by trying to divert attention.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

That hardly supports your case, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]."

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Why do you keep asking what you said, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as demonstrated by the graphic at http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/ [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. And even if what you said were true, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], patent pools create artificial high barriers to entry, allowing a few incumbents to form an oligopoly that is scarcely better than a monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

I picked a random suit from the list, Kodak v. Samsung. That suit was dismissed in 2008!

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, Lonnie, or that the patent thicket associated with it has magically disappeared. Nor does the rest of your drivel, Lonnie.

Your understanding of the patent pool is erroneous.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

The pool consists of the patents related to the smartphone standard. If you comply with the standard, you get access to all the patents in the pool.

No doubt said "compliance" is rather costly, Lonnie.

The goal was to make it EASIER for new entrants, preventing incumbents from forming an oligopoly.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Dedicating all of the involved patents to the public domain would have that effect, yet they didn't choose to do so. Whether in the guise of promoting "standards" or not, the only possible reason would be to prevent at least some potential entrants from joining the market, Lonnie. Patents have no function other than to prevent some possible entrants from participating in certain markets, Lonnie, as you well know.

The pool seems to be having that effect, as dozens of companies have entered the smartphone field.

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, Lonnie.

You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

How ironic that the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the ‘net for over a year now is filled with old cases and cases from multiple countries.

Patents linger for a couple of decades before expiring, Lonnie, and treaties enforce most of them worldwide.

Furthermore, the number of smartphone manufacturers has tripled in the last five or six years with new entrants constantly coming into the marketplace. Gridlock?

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, Lonnie.

Hyperbole.

What does your hyperbole have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Explosion of entrants seems more approporiate.

What seems appropriate to you is irrelevant, Lonnie. When experts in innovation, like Mike Masnick, agree that the smartphone patent thicket is a problem for innovation, Lonnie, it is a problem for innovation, Lonnie.

Okay, prove it. Show where these patents are "considerably more recent."

Apple's various iPhone-related patents on things like multitouch are, obviously, only a few years old, Lonnie.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Recall that graphic, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Everybody that's anybody is suing everybody else in the smartphone space, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or hadn't you noticed?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Except, the lawsuits are dying down.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

The chart you keep referencing is filled with old and settled cases, or hadn't you noticed?

Individual patent cases rarely remain in litigation for more than a few years, Lonnie, but the thicket carries on.

If the remaining lawsuits are a deterrent, why are more and more companies entering the market?

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, Lonnie.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted] There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Your response is not a declaration, but an avoidance of the question, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

ABusywax/Stephen Kinsella:

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: Who said that? I don't recall anybody in these comments saying "I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]"

I said: That was a statement you made in your post "Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax." Are you having reading comprehension problems again, Stephen?

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen. I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted. Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

I sad: What does your irrelevant non sequitur have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Well, it does not matter if you are not using your real name, does it, Stephen? We can use None of Your Beeswax and Stephen Kinsella interchangeably.

I said: The original post was related to GERMANY.

You said: The BBC is a British news agency, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], not a German one. Suffering from geography problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Are you suffering from reading comprehension issues, Stephen? The BBC is a British new agency, and they were reporting on a German lawsuit. Suffering from geography problems, Stephen? Does one country reporting on issues in another country confuse you?

I said: There was not one mention of the UK in the original post.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There was a link to the BBC's website, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Yes, Stephen, the link was to the BBC's website, where they reported on a German lawsuit. Are you having issues with reading English, Stephen?

I said: Suffering from reading comprehension problems again, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I know, Stephen. You refuse to either deny that you are Stephen Kinsella or acknowledge that you are Stephen Kinsella. In combination with information I have from another source, that leads me to believe that regardless of whether you are using the name, None of Your Beeswax = Stephen Kinsella.

I said: I do not believe there are any smartphone manufacturers in Germany, which is why I focused on worldwide.

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

Irrelevant, Stephen, since the original article was about cell phone lawsuits and not about news agencies. What does a new agency in the United Kingdom have to do with monopoly in Germany, Stephen? You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: Who said that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen. I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted. Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

I said: You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]."

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen. I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted. Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

I said: Are you suffering from reading comprehension problems AGAIN, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I know, Stephen. You refuse to either deny that you are Stephen Kinsella or acknowledge that you are Stephen Kinsella. In combination with information I have from another source, that leads me to believe that regardless of whether you are using the name, None of Your Beeswax = Stephen Kinsella.

I said: The fault I have with your statement is that there had never been any evidence of collusion between these parties.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition.

I said: Classic erroneous response to a statement requiring evidence from you rather than an irrelevant pontification.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition.

Evidence is required, Stephen. Moreover, what does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: I said "greedy and corrupt public servants", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. I never specified a particular branch of government, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and indeed you can find some in all three.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen. I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted. Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

You said: I'm not aware of the UK justice system including "federal district courts" or a "CFAC", [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I said: You keep bringing up the UK.

You said: Because the original blog post was a pointer to a BBC news article, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Sigh. Stephen, if an article in the UK reports on a flu epidemic in Canada, are you going to insist the problem is in the UK because a UK new service reported on it? Suffering from reading comprehension AND logic issues AGAIN, Stephen.

I said: I am not sure why since the UK is irrelevant to this discussion.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: Getting past that, I am unfamiliar with Germany's patent system, so I am unable to speak as to how their patent system works.

You said: Germany's patent system is irrelevant to the UK, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I would suspect that to be true. So the next time you find an article about patents in the UK, we'll talk. In the meantime, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with the facts of the article.

I said: What I do know is that traditionally Europeans have had a more rigorous and narrow standard of patentability than the United States.

You said: And yet they have allowed a number of software patents to be granted and enforced, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It seems that, when it comes to patents, even "rigorous and narrow" means overly-broad and innovation-hampering, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You have made several unsupported statements, Stephen. You have provided no evidence that any European patents are overly broad and you have provided no evidence that European patents are innovation hampering.

I said: It seems like it would be more difficult for the collusion you describe to occur in Germany

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

What does a UK news agency have to do with Monopoly, Stephen?

I said: and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your accusation.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Non sequitur.

I said: Classic avoidance syndrome.

You said: What does your avoidance syndrome have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: I challenged you on a factual basis and you respond by trying to divert attention.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: That hardly supports your case, Stephen.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I said: You said that in your post "[Comment at 12/12/2011 08:30 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]."

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I said: Why do you keep asking what you said, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as demonstrated by the graphic at http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/ [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. And even if what you said were true, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], patent pools create artificial high barriers to entry, allowing a few incumbents to form an oligopoly that is scarcely better than a monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen, that was an exact copy from your post at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]

I said: I picked a random suit from the list, Kodak v. Samsung. That suit was dismissed in 2008!

You said: That doesn't mean it didn't happen, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or that the patent thicket associated with it has magically disappeared.

Stephen, the "patent thicket" that this figure seems to imply only exists when you include dismissed suits, settled suits, and multiple countries. Since what happens in one country rarely, if ever, affects what happens in another country, this chart seems more designed to gain an emotional reaction from people who rarely use logic to look at the details. The fact remains that in spite of the hype and inflammatory statements, the number of smart phone manufacturers continues to expand at a steady pace.

You said: Nor does the rest of your drivel, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Stephen, I am saddened that the best you can do in response to facts and logic is an ad hominem attack. Come on, Stephen, surely you can do better in attacking the data and the facts rather than attacking the commenter.

I said: Your understanding of the patent pool is erroneous.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: The pool consists of the patents related to the smartphone standard. If you comply with the standard, you get access to all the patents in the pool.

You said: No doubt said "compliance" is rather costly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

The standard is an industry standard. How difficult is it to comply with the USB standard, Stephen? Of course, if you have any actual evidence regarding the cost of compliance, then present it.

I said: The goal was to make it EASIER for new entrants, preventing incumbents from forming an oligopoly.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Dedicating all of the involved patents to the public domain would have that effect, yet they didn't choose to do so. Whether in the guise of promoting "standards" or not, the only possible reason would be to prevent at least some potential entrants from joining the market, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Patents have no function other than to prevent some possible entrants from participating in certain markets, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], as you well know.

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The intent of patents was to encourage the development of new technology. You have failed to prove that any potential entrants into the market have been stopped by the existence of any patents. I would suggest that evidence you have provided thus far with respect to lawsuits suggests that companies are entering the market regardless of the intellectual property of other companies. It appears that the barrier is considered insignificant.

I said: The pool seems to be having that effect, as dozens of companies have entered the smartphone field.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Classic erroneous presupposition. Without patents, it is quite possible there would have been no market at all, and then there would have been no smart phones or cell phones. Motorola invented cell phone technology and proved it out, and spent more than a decade trying to get the government to free up bandwidth to support cell systems. All because they had patents and wanted to exploit them. You can thank patents for the growth of cell technology, Stephen.

You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

That was an exact copy of your quote from [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]. Are you denying your words, Stephen?

I said: How ironic that the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the ‘net for over a year now is filled with old cases and cases from multiple countries.

You said: Patents linger for a couple of decades before expiring, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and treaties enforce most of them worldwide.

Come now. Treaties enforce most of them worldwide? Do you have so little understanding of patents? A patent in the United States is not enforceable in any other country in the world. A patent in Germany is not enforceable in any other country in the world. Patents are different from copyrights in that respect. Patents are only good in the country that issued the patent and no other.

Patents do not "linger" for a couple of decades before expiring, Stephen. They are valid for 20 years from the date of filing. Since electronic patents can take five years or more to issue, that means patents in the electronic field are good for about 15 years.

I said: Furthermore, the number of smartphone manufacturers has tripled in the last five or six years with new entrants constantly coming into the marketplace. Gridlock?

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that the situation would have been any better without patents. The fact that Motorola spear-headed the drive to get the bandwidth for cell phones because they had cell phone patents is suggestive that without patents we might not have a cell phone system today.

You said: You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I said: Hyperbole.

You said: What does your hyperbole have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: Explosion of entrants seems more appropriate.

You said: What seems appropriate to you is irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. When experts in innovation, like Mike Masnick, agree that the smartphone patent thicket is a problem for innovation, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], it is a problem for innovation, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Mike Masnick's opinion is exactly that, an opinion. Smart phone technology has grown in leaps and bounds and I defy Mike Masnick or anyone else to show that without patents the technology would expand any faster than it has, Stephen.

I said: Another factor that will soon come into play, as it always does, is expiration of patents. The first smart phone patents were filed around 1990 and many of the base patents were filed throughout the 1990s. These patents are beginning to expire and will expire in greater numbers.

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since many of the most troublesome patents (by Apple, Nokia, and a few other companies) are considerably more recent.

I said: Okay, prove it. Show where these patents are "considerably more recent."

You said: Apple's various iPhone-related patents on things like multitouch are, obviously, only a few years old, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

That is for one smart phone feature among many. I notice that multiple companies are using features that appear to be multitouch. Have any of them stopped using multitouch because of the Apple patents? Are other companies releasing new phones with the multitouch features? Yes, they are.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Recall that graphic, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Everybody that's anybody is suing everybody else in the smartphone space, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or hadn't you noticed?

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

I said: Except, the lawsuits are dying down.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: The chart you keep referencing is filled with old and settled cases, or hadn't you noticed?

You said: Individual patent cases rarely remain in litigation for more than a few years, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], but the thicket carries on.

First, you have not proven there is a thicket. Second, if there is a thicket, you have not proven that it has halted even one company from entering the market. I said: If the remaining lawsuits are a deterrent, why are more and more companies entering the market?

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Classis unsubstantiated speculation based on biased personal perspective that is irrelevant. Perhaps had there been no patents, there might be no cell phones at all.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted] There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

I said: Your response is not a declaration, but an avoidance of the question, Stephen.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

ABusywax/Stephen Kinsella:

Who is "ABusywax/Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: The UK market? I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who said that? I don't recall anybody in these comments saying "I doubt that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]"

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I sad: What does your irrelevant non sequitur have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

What do you mean by "I sad", Lonnie? If you are unhappy with shilling the pro-patent position for some IP law firm, Lonnie, then perhaps you should quit.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Well, it does not matter if you are not using your real name, does it, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

We can use None of Your Beeswax and Stephen Kinsella interchangeably.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You said: The BBC is a British news agency, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], not a German one. Suffering from geography problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Are you suffering from reading comprehension issues, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

The BBC is a British new agency,

Classic pontification.

Suffering from geography problems, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There was a link to the BBC's website, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Yes, Stephen, the link was to the BBC's website,

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Are you having issues with reading English, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

I know, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You refuse to either deny that you are Stephen Kinsella or acknowledge that you are Stephen Kinsella.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

In combination with information I have from another source, that leads me to believe that regardless of whether you are using the name, None of Your Beeswax = Stephen Kinsella.

What do your erroneous information from "another source" and your resulting erroneous belief have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Irrelevant, Stephen, since the original article was about cell phone lawsuits and not about news agencies.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does a new agency in the United Kingdom have to do with monopoly in Germany, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: The evil comes when greedy monopolists and greedy and corrupt public servants know full well that patents are not beneficial but collude to expand them anyway against the public interest, [erroneous ad hominem].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who said that, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

I know, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You refuse to either deny that you are Stephen Kinsella or acknowledge that you are Stephen Kinsella.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

In combination with information I have from another source, that leads me to believe that regardless of whether you are using the name, None of Your Beeswax = Stephen Kinsella.

What do your erroneous information from "another source" and your resulting erroneous belief have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Evidence is required, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Moreover, what does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: I said "greedy and corrupt public servants", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. I never specified a particular branch of government, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and indeed you can find some in all three.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I substantiated my claim with evidence that I copied precisely from your statements, with the exception of the ad hominem that I deleted.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Indeed, because you are now denying your own words, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with monopoly, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: I'm not aware of the UK justice system including "federal district courts" or a "CFAC", [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Because the original blog post was a pointer to a BBC news article, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Sigh.

What does that have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen, if an article in the UK reports on a flu epidemic in Canada, are you going to insist the problem is in the UK because a UK new service reported on it? Suffering from reading comprehension AND logic issues AGAIN, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Germany's patent system is irrelevant to the UK, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

I would suspect that to be true. So the next time you find an article about patents in the UK, we'll talk. In the meantime, your statement is an irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation that has nothing to do with the facts of the article.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You said: And yet they have allowed a number of software patents to be granted and enforced, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It seems that, when it comes to patents, even "rigorous and narrow" means overly-broad and innovation-hampering, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You have made several unsupported statements, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You have provided no evidence that any European patents are overly broad and you have provided no evidence that European patents are innovation hampering.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I pointed out that Europe has several software patents in force, Lonnie, which suffices to prove both statements. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since the original article referenced a UK news agency, not Germany.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does a UK news agency have to do with Monopoly, Stephen?

Reread the original blog article that spawned this discussion, Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your avoidance syndrome have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Nobody claimed that anyone has actually (thus far) been stopped from producing tablets or smart phones, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Levine merely implied that if everybody toed the patent-law line we couldn't have any, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], which suffices to discredit the worth of patent law.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as demonstrated by the graphic at http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/ [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. And even if what you said were true, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], patent pools create artificial high barriers to entry, allowing a few incumbents to form an oligopoly that is scarcely better than a monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen, that was an exact copy from your post at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: That doesn't mean it didn't happen, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or that the patent thicket associated with it has magically disappeared.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Stephen, the "patent thicket" that this figure seems to imply only exists when you include dismissed suits, settled suits, and multiple countries.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The patent thicket exists as long as the patents exist, Lonnie. And who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Since what happens in one country rarely, if ever, affects what happens in another country, this chart seems more designed to gain an emotional reaction from people who rarely use logic to look at the details.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The fact remains that in spite of the hype and inflammatory statements, the number of smart phone manufacturers continues to expand at a steady pace.

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, that pace would be even greater, Lonnie.

You said: Nor does the rest of your drivel, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Stephen, I am saddened that the best you can do in response to facts and logic is an ad hominem attack. Come on, Stephen, surely you can do better in attacking the data and the facts rather than attacking the commenter.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: No doubt said "compliance" is rather costly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

The standard is an industry standard.

What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

How difficult is it to comply with the USB standard, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Of course, if you have any actual evidence regarding the cost of compliance, then present it.

It requires licensing a patent pool, Lonnie. Still suffering from memory problems, Lonnie?

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Dedicating all of the involved patents to the public domain would have that effect, yet they didn't choose to do so. Whether in the guise of promoting "standards" or not, the only possible reason would be to prevent at least some potential entrants from joining the market, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Patents have no function other than to prevent some possible entrants from participating in certain markets, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], as you well know.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The intent of patents was to encourage the development of new technology.

In that, it failed, Lonnie.

You have failed to prove that any potential entrants into the market have been stopped by the existence of any patents.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I would suggest that evidence you have provided thus far with respect to lawsuits suggests that companies are entering the market regardless of the intellectual property of other companies. It appears that the barrier is considered insignificant.

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, that pace would be even greater, Lonnie.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

I know you made a classic erroneous presupposition, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it. Indeed, I had just told you about it, Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Without patents, it is quite possible there would have been no market at all, and then there would have been no smart phones or cell phones.

Almost anything is possible, Lonnie, but most of them are extremely unlikely.

Motorola invented cell phone technology and proved it out, and spent more than a decade trying to get the government to free up bandwidth to support cell systems. All because they had patents and wanted to exploit them. You can thank patents for the growth of cell technology, Stephen.

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. And who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

That was an exact copy of your quote from [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never included "[erroneous ad hominem deleted]" in that text, Lonnie, so it cannot be "an exact copy".

Are you denying your words, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Patents linger for a couple of decades before expiring, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], and treaties enforce most of them worldwide.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Come now.

What does that have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Patents do not "linger" for a couple of decades before expiring, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

They are valid for 20 years from the date of filing.

I just said that, Lonnie. Still suffering from memory problems, Lonnie?

Since electronic patents can take five years or more to issue, that means patents in the electronic field are good for about 15 years.

Classic pontification, and irrelevant besides.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that the situation would have been any better without patents.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The fact that Motorola spear-headed the drive to get the bandwidth for cell phones because they had cell phone patents is suggestive that without patents we might not have a cell phone system today.

Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation.

You said: You said: How ironic, given the graphic depiction of said gridlock that has been floating around the 'net for over a year now, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your hyperbole have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: What seems appropriate to you is irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. When experts in innovation, like Mike Masnick, agree that the smartphone patent thicket is a problem for innovation, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], it is a problem for innovation, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Mike Masnick's opinion is exactly that, an opinion.

An expert opinion, Lonnie.

Smart phone technology has grown in leaps and bounds and I defy Mike Masnick or anyone else to show that without patents the technology would expand any faster than it has, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias. Also, a classic attempt at reversal of the burden of proof, Lonnie. But that burden lies on he would would restrict freedom, thus, the pro-patent side of the debate, which would be you, Lonnie.

You said: Irrelevant, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], since many of the most troublesome patents (by Apple, Nokia, and a few other companies) are considerably more recent.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: Apple's various iPhone-related patents on things like multitouch are, obviously, only a few years old, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

That is for one smart phone feature among many.

I gave only one example among many, Lonnie. It only took one to disprove your universal negative claim, Lonnie.

I notice that multiple companies are using features that appear to be multitouch. Have any of them stopped using multitouch because of the Apple patents? Are other companies releasing new phones with the multitouch features? Yes, they are.

Classic pontification. According to the original article, they are technically breaking the law by doing so, Lonnie; if the law were fully enforced, then, as that article contended (and you erroneously disputed) we could not have those devices, Lonnie.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Recall that graphic, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Everybody that's anybody is suing everybody else in the smartphone space, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or hadn't you noticed?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Individual patent cases rarely remain in litigation for more than a few years, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], but the thicket carries on.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

First, you have not proven there is a thicket.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The chart demonstrates clearly that a large number of disparate companies, Lonnie, some of them non-practicing entities, hold patents that pretty much all smart phones potentially infringe. That's sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a thicket, Lonnie.

Second, if there is a thicket, you have not proven that it has halted even one company from entering the market.

It is difficult to prove that when the result is an absence rather than a presence, Lonnie, but it is quite likely, given that there are expensive licensing costs for the patents, a very high likelihood of a very expensive patent lawsuit if one enters the space without licensing them, and a fairly high likelihood of yet another patent surfacing and being used against new companies (or everyone) in the space in the future.

You said: Classic erroneous presupposition resulting from confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps, were none of these patents in existence, hundreds would have, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

Classis unsubstantiated speculation based on biased personal perspective that is irrelevant.

What is "Classis", Lonnie, and what does it have to do with monopoly? Rather ironic, too, that you of all people would talk about bias, Lonnie.

Perhaps had there been no patents, there might be no cell phones at all.

Baseless speculation.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted] There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote something else, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

No, Stephen, you made this comment at [Comment at 12/13/2011 11:29 AM by None Of Your Beeswax], which I copied exactly with the exception of deleting your irrelevant ad hominem.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote something else, Lonnie.

What does your irrelevant and extraneous diversionary obfuscation have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.