KEVIN J. O'BRIEN writes in the New York Times about companies fighting over patents link here. The plaintiffs have taken to court-shopping by suing in Germany rather than in other jurisdictions. Companies fearful of having their German operations closed down by its courts are moving their operations elsewhere in Europe (Germany might now want to consider changing its law and practice).

The story fails to make the most important point, that patents under the US Constitution are intended to foster innovation. They should be so treated elsewhere. Instead, current company practice in both the US and around the world is to ignore that goal. They treat patents as a thing owned like land and physical objects, (in practice in perpetuity by amending the law to extend their life). Patents then become an important way to increase profits.

Patents and copyrights are happy-land for lawyers who also dominate our politics and write the laws that favor their profession. Candidates need to be asked their views on the issue.

John Bennett:

You make some huge leaps or assumptions in your post.

First, you say that the story fails to make the most important point, that patents under the U.S. Constitution are intended to foster innovation. That was not the most important point of the article, and having read the article several times, it appears that the article would have had to be re-written to focus on the intent of patent systems rather than the need for change in the German patent system to make it less friendly to patent holders.

Second, one intent of the U.S. patent system might be to foster innovation, but the stated purpose of the patent system was to get people to reveal their knowledge to the wider world faster. The thought is that if people reveal what they know, then others can build on that knowledge faster, which indirectly should help speed innovation as compared to people hiding knowledge.

After your introductory comments you diverge completely from the article and throw in beliefs that have nothing to do with the article at all. For example, while current company practice may be to treat patents like property, it is irrelevant how companies treat patents. What is important is how the court system and laws treat patents. And your statements have nothing to do with the situation in Germany.

Next, you then throw in a statement that is even more irrelevant and unsupported, that somehow patents are extended into perpetuity by changes in the law, even though the life of patents has been changed once in the last 100 years to effectively shorten their life. This shortening was effected by changing the life of a patent from 14 years after issuing (which in some cases has effectively increased the life of a patent to decades), to 20 years after the date of filing, which encourages applicants to speed the process and to not hide knowledge.

I guess you may as well heap on more irrelevancies by claiming that patents are an important way to increase profits. Important to whom? How many companies find patents to be an important way to increase profits? Even if patents are not "important" in increasing profits, how many have actually had a measurable increase in profits because they have patents. Considering the relatively small number of patents that are ever litigated (depending on whose analysis you believe, somewhere between 0.75% and 1.5% of all patents are ever in a dispute), it hardly seems likely that patents are an important way to increase profits for very many companies.

Then you change the subject completely by throwing in copyrights, which are completely different from patents.

Skipping past the irrelevancy, if patent lawyers are dominating our politics and writing laws that favor themselves, they are doing it wrong. All Congress and the courts in the United States have done for most of the last decade is to decrease the power and value of patents (Bilski and the very recent Prometheus decision come to mind, among others and among a series of laws decreasing the ability of obtaining patents). So, if lawyers are in control of our politics and having laws written that favor patents, they are REALLY doing it wrong.

While we are asking candidates about their views on the issue (Obama says he's all for strong IP rights; of course, he also said that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress - apparently there are a lot of people who have no clue what they are talking about), we can ask them how coherent and understandable your post is.

Alonniemouse, as usual, wrote a lot of trolling criticizing the blog in response to a new article about patents; his knee-jerk response to any patent-related article is as predictable as a keyword-triggered bot's. That said, a few specific points need addressing (duty calls):

Second, one intent of the U.S. patent system might be to foster innovation, but the stated purpose of the patent system was to get people to reveal their knowledge to the wider world faster.

Wrong. The intent of the U.S. patent system is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In particular, encouraging disclosure is one way to possibly do so, and rewarding inventors with a temporary monopoly is another, and the patent system attempts to do both. To claim that encouraging disclosure, rather than promoting the progress, is the primary goal is to put the cart before the horse.

I guess you may as well heap on more irrelevancies by claiming that patents are an important way to increase profits. Important to whom? How many companies find patents to be an important way to increase profits? Even if patents are not "important" in increasing profits, how many have actually had a measurable increase in profits because they have patents?

Every patent troll, for starters. Oh, excuse me, as I recall "non-practicing entities" is what the sorts of companies you represent prefer to be called.

Beeswax:

Thomas Jefferson was concerned that innovations were being hidden by their inventors. His goal was to get inventors to share, thus promoting to progress. To merely give an inventor an exclusive right to their invention does not accomplish that goal. To give the inventor an exclusive right to their invention in exchange for disclosing the details of that invention does accomplish that purpose. Perhaps a better analogy rather than carts and horses and books and libraries. The exclusive right helps to fill the library with knowledge.

As for your second comment about patent trolls, or non-practicing entities, I do not represent any such organization. I work for companies that manufacture products.

Even getting past who I work for, which is none of your beeswax, you have avoided answering the question. NPE's seem to be on the ropes between laws limiting the amount they can claim in litigation and the constant narrowing of patent laws. So, how many companies, even including the trolls, are actually using patents to increase their profits?

Alonniemouse writes:

Thomas Jefferson was concerned that innovations were being hidden by their inventors. His goal was to get inventors to share, thus promoting to progress. To merely give an inventor an exclusive right to their invention does not accomplish that goal. To give the inventor an exclusive right to their invention in exchange for disclosing the details of that invention does accomplish that purpose. Perhaps a better analogy rather than carts and horses and books and libraries. The exclusive right helps to fill the library with knowledge.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since it remains the case that the overarching purpose of patent law is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

As for your second comment about patent trolls, or non-practicing entities, I do not represent any such organization. I work for companies that manufacture products.

That unsubstantiated claim is one you'd make whether or not they really manufactured products, of course.

Even getting past who I work for, which is none of your beeswax, you have avoided answering the question.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

NPE's seem to be on the ropes between laws limiting the amount they can claim in litigation and the constant narrowing of patent laws.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

So, how many companies, even including the trolls, are actually using patents to increase their profits?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie? I already answered that question, Lonnie, in my previous comment. Specifically, I noted that all patent trolls are doing so; indeed, they must be, since patent trolls by definition have no other source of income.

Beeswax:

I am not sure why you bothered to respond, since you brought nothing new to the table except ad hominem, misdirection, and at least one outright lie. Regardless, there are points that you, likely deliberately, overlook.

With respect to the "overarching purpose" of patent law, as you describe it, just how does patent law "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"?

As to your next comment about what I do or do not do, you call me a liar. That is an erroneous and unsubstantiated claim without even the most remote factual basis. I have stated that I do not represent (which is really easy since I am not an attorney) a patent troll. I will go even further and tell you that I do work only for entities that produce or sell manufactured products.

Next you get into the unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that you answered the question of which companies find "patents [to be] an important way to increase profits." Your answer of patent trolls presupposes that patent trolls, aka non-practicing entities, have means other than patents by which they make profits. So I ask you again, how many companies meet the conditions stipulated and implied by John Bennett, that a company making profits is able to INCREASE profits by use of patents.

Very interesting post!

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

I am not sure why you bothered to respond, since you brought nothing new to the table except ad hominem, misdirection, and at least one outright lie.

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

Regardless, there are points that you, likely deliberately, overlook.

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

With respect to the "overarching purpose" of patent law, as you describe it, just how does patent law "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie? I already answered that in a previous comment. Furthermore, if you still need education on that point, then your clients should not be hiring you to represent them, Lonnie.

As to your next comment about what I do or do not do, you call me a liar.

Classic pontification.

That is an erroneous and unsubstantiated claim without even the most remote factual basis.

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

I have stated that I do not represent (which is really easy since I am not an attorney) a patent troll.

What does your previous lie have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I will go even further and tell you that I do work only for entities that produce or sell manufactured products.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Your repeated defense of patent trolling in this blog's comments clearly indicates otherwise, Lonnie.

Next you get into the unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that you answered the question of which companies find "patents [to be] an important way to increase profits."

Classic erroneous presupposition that my claim was unsubstantiated or erroneous.

Your answer of patent trolls presupposes that patent trolls, aka non-practicing entities, have means other than patents by which they make profits.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

So I ask you again, how many companies meet the conditions stipulated and implied by John Bennett, that a company making profits is able to INCREASE profits by use of patents.

All of the non-practicing entities, Lonnie, which you'd know by now if you had better reading comprehension skills.

Beeswax:

Who is "Lonnie"? There is no one posting on this page going by that name. Is that some sort of obscure insult?

Thank you for your response. As it makes clear, you have no response for any of my points.

Beeswax:

It seems that a non-practicing company would not have any profits without patents. So adding patents to the mix, they do not increase profits, they go from having no profits to having profits. Increasing profits would seem to imply that they had profits in the first place. I would also be curious as to how many companies that had profits without patents are able to increase those profits with patents.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

Who is "Lonnie"? There is no one posting on this page going by that name.

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

Is that some sort of obscure insult?

What does your ridiculous question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? If you feel that calling you by your own name is an insult, Lonnie, then you have only yourself to blame for your own ill repute.

Thank you for your response. As it makes clear, you have no response for any of my points.

Classic contradiction.

"Ayn Rand Was Right" wrote:

Beeswax:

It seems that a non-practicing company would not have any profits without patents.

Classic pontification.

So adding patents to the mix, they do not increase profits, they go from having no profits to having profits.

Classic contradiction. The change from zero to a positive number is an increase, Rand. Suffering from math problems, Rand?

Increasing profits would seem to imply that they had profits in the first place.

What seems to you is irrelevant, Rand. The math is clear on this issue.

I would also be curious as to how many companies that had profits without patents are able to increase those profits with patents.

Ones that combine patent trolling in one field with provision of products or services in another, at a bare minimum, Rand.

Beeswax:

Let's go back to John Bennett's post, where he says:

"Patents then become an important way to increase profits."

John does not say "the" important way, he says "an" important way, implying that there are other important ways to increase profits for companies having patents. Keeping "an" in mind, how many companies have important sources of profit that are non-patent based that then increase those profits by way of patents? NPE's, which have only patent-based profits, would not fit into this category.

As a side note, and ignored totally by this web site, Congress passed a law last year restricting filing of false-marking law suits to companies that can prove they have been financially harmed by the false-marking. Thus, the numerous NPE's that set up offices in the East District of Texas for the specific purpose of filing false-marking suits saw their visions of potential fortunes flushed down the toilet. All of those cases have now been dismissed.

Beeswax:

What does your ill-advised use of an irrelevant name have to do with monopoly? You should answer my points rather than trying, and failing, to side step them.

The government gives an inventor an exclusive right to make, use, sell, or offer for sale his or her invention for a limited period of time in exchange for full disclosure of the invention. There is no first way and second way, it is all part of the one agreement with inventors. This agreement is the horse that is supposed to pull the "promote the progress" cart or statement in the constitution. Looked at in a slightly different manner, the "promote the progress" is the public goal, and the exclusivity in exchange for the patent is how the public goal is achieved.

Alonniemouse writes:

Beeswax:

Let's go back to John Bennett's post, where he says:

"Patents then become an important way to increase profits."

John does not say "the" important way, he says "an" important way, implying that there are other important ways to increase profits for companies having patents.

That for companies in general, Lonnie. Not all of them will necessarily be applicable to any particular company, Lonnie. Still suffering from logic problems, Lonnie?

Keeping "an" in mind, how many companies have important sources of profit that are non-patent based that then increase those profits by way of patents? NPE's, which have only patent-based profits, would not fit into this category.

Irrelevant.

As a side note, and ignored totally by this web site, Congress passed a law last year restricting filing of false-marking law suits to companies that can prove they have been financially harmed by the false-marking.

Irrelevant.

Thus, the numerous NPE's that set up offices in the East District of Texas for the specific purpose of filing false-marking suits saw their visions of potential fortunes flushed down the toilet. All of those cases have now been dismissed.

Irrelevant.

Beeswax:

What does your ill-advised use of an irrelevant name have to do with monopoly?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

You should answer my points rather than trying, and failing, to side step them.

What do your classic erroneous presuppositions (that you have any points and that I am failing at anything and that I am trying to side step anything) have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The government gives an inventor an exclusive right to make, use, sell, or offer for sale his or her invention for a limited period of time in exchange for full disclosure of the invention.

Classic pontification.

There is no first way and second way, it is all part of the one agreement with inventors. This agreement is the horse that is supposed to pull the "promote the progress" cart or statement in the constitution. Looked at in a slightly different manner, the "promote the progress" is the public goal, and the exclusivity in exchange for the patent is how the public goal is achieved.

Classic pontification, and you now seem to be agreeing with my earlier statements even though you previously disagreed with them. Learning at last, Lonnie, or just suffering from memory problems?

Beeswax:

My reading comprehension is fine, as you just admitted. Now that you have admitted that patents are but one source of profits, and an additional one at that, which companies have a non-patent source of profit that has then been increased by the presence of patents. This question should be an easy one to answer.

I said:

Keeping "an" in mind, how many companies have important sources of profit that are non-patent based that then increase those profits by way of patents? NPE's, which have only patent-based profits, would not fit into this category.

You said:

Irrelevant.

My comment: So, you first say that NPEs are relevant, and now they are irrelevant? Please make up your mind and take one position, not one that suits you in a particular response.

I said:

As a side note, and ignored totally by this web site, Congress passed a law last year restricting filing of false-marking law suits to companies that can prove they have been financially harmed by the false-marking.

You said:

Irrelevant.

My comment: My comment was related to NPEs, which is an issue that you brought up. If NPEs are important, then my comment is relevant. If they are not important or relevant, why did YOU bring them up in the first place?

I said:

You should answer my points rather than trying, and failing, to side step them.

You said:

What do your classic erroneous presuppositions (that you have any points and that I am failing at anything and that I am trying to side step anything) have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

My comment: You have not proven that anything that I have said is either classic, erroneous, or a presumption. Your unsupported statement that such is the case is irrelevant. In fact, by making this statement you once again side step the issue. Furthermore, you have failed to respond to a previous question as to what "Lonnie" means. Is this some obscure insult?

I said:

The government gives an inventor an exclusive right to make, use, sell, or offer for sale his or her invention for a limited period of time in exchange for full disclosure of the invention.

You said:

Classic pontification.

My comment: Explain why my statement is either classic or a pontification. The statement is a statement of the so-called "patent bargain" which is well documented and described in both intellectual property AND anti-intellectual property literature. It is the means by which Congress has chosen to promote the progress.

I said:

There is no first way and second way, it is all part of the one agreement with inventors. This agreement is the horse that is supposed to pull the "promote the progress" cart or statement in the constitution. Looked at in a slightly different manner, the "promote the progress" is the public goal, and the exclusivity in exchange for the patent is how the public goal is achieved.

You said:

Classic pontification, and you now seem to be agreeing with my earlier statements even though you previously disagreed with them. Learning at last, Lonnie, or just suffering from memory problems?

My comment: Earlier you said that by making the statement I just made that I was putting the cart before the horse. Now you are agreeing with me even though you previously disagreed with me. Learning at last, Stephan, or just suffering from memory problems?

As an aside, prove that my statements are either classic or pontifications.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

My reading comprehension is fine,

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

as you just admitted.

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

Now that you have admitted that patents are but one source of profits,

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? There is no "admission" there. However it's the only source for patent trolls, Lonnie.

and an additional one at that, which companies have a non-patent source of profit that has then been increased by the presence of patents. This question should be an easy one to answer.

Irrelevant.

So, you first say that NPEs are relevant, and now they are irrelevant?

No.

Please make up your mind and take one position, not one that suits you in a particular response.

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

My comment was related to NPEs,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You went onto a completely irrelevant tangent about "false marking" claims, which topic had not been under discussion, Lonnie.

which is an issue that you brought up.

Classic pontification.

If NPEs are important, then my comment is relevant.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

If they are not important or relevant, why did YOU bring them up in the first place?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

You have not proven that anything that I have said is either classic, erroneous, or a presumption.

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

Your unsupported statement that such is the case is irrelevant.

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

In fact, by making this statement you once again side step the issue.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Rather ironic, too, coming from the person who threw up a completely random tangent about "false marking" complaints to side step the original issue.

Furthermore, you have failed to respond to a previous question as to what "Lonnie" means.

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

Is this some obscure insult?

What does your ridiculous question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? It's your name, Lonnie. It's written on your birth certificate, followed by "E. Holder", Lonnie. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Explain why my statement is either classic or a pontification.

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

The statement is a statement of the so-called "patent bargain" which is well documented and described in both intellectual property AND anti-intellectual property literature.

Classic pontification.

It is the means by which Congress has chosen to promote the progress.

Classic erroneous presupposition that it is the sole means. More correct would be to say that it is a means by which Congress has chosen to promote the progress, Lonnie.

Earlier you said that by making the statement I just made that I was putting the cart before the horse.

Classic pontification.

Now you are agreeing with me even though you previously disagreed with me.

Classic erroneous presupposition that it's my position that's changed.

Learning at last, Stephan, or just suffering from memory problems?

Who is "Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in these blog comments using that alias.

As an aside, prove that my statements are either classic or pontifications.

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

Beeswax attempts to write:

I said:

My reading comprehension is fine,

Beeswax said:

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

My comment: Well, Stephan/Beeswax, you brought up reading comprehension, or are you suffering from memory loss and reading comprehension problems? If you are going to bring it up, you should be prepared to discuss it rather than trying to side step it. If you are going to complain about non-monopoly related subjects, then stop bringing them up.

Furthermore, there is no one here going by the name of your obscure insult, "Lonnie."

I said:

as you just admitted.

Stephan/None of Your said:

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

My comment: Are you fixated on "Lonnie"? Do you dream about her or him? You seem to have some sort of issues with this person or insult.

You claim my statement is classic. I thank you for that. However, you have proven neither that my statement is erroneous nor that it is a presupposition. Indeed, you already admitted from your comments that my reading comprehension is fine. On the other hand, I am having serious doubts about yours.

As a secondary issue, my statements related to my reading comprehension of monopoly related issues. Your statement, on the other hand, is totally unrelated to monopoly. Stay on track please, Stephan/None of Your.

I said:

Now that you have admitted that patents are but one source of profits,

None of You said:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? There is no "admission" there. However it's the only source for patent trolls, Lonnie.

My comments: Stephan/None of You, who cares about patent trolls? They are not the subject of my conversation. As was made quite clear by John Bennett in his statements, and mine, the subject is companies that have non-patent income that also supposedly gain important sources of revenue from patents. The question is: How many such companies exist? However, I am curious about patent trolls as well. How many trolls exist, and how many of those are profitable?

You really are fixated on "Lonnie," aren't you? Try a different insult, because this one does not affect me.

I said:

and an additional one at that, which companies have a non-patent source of profit that has then been increased by the presence of patents. This question should be an easy one to answer.

You said:

Irrelevant.

My comments: Since it is irrelevant to you, why keep bringing it up? It is clear from what John Bennett said that this is the primary issue.

I said:

So, you first say that NPEs are relevant, and now they are irrelevant?

You said:

No.

My comment: Good, we are getting somewhere. Then stop saying my comments about NPE's are irrelevant.

I said:

Please make up your mind and take one position, not one that suits you in a particular response.

You said:

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

My comments: The same tired old comment, Stephan/None? Thank you for saying my statement is classic. Compliments are always appreciated. However, you have not proven that my statement is erroneous. In fact, reading your previous responses, it is readily apparent that you have contradicted yourself at least a couple of times.

I said:

My comment was related to NPEs,

None of/Stephan said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You went onto a completely irrelevant tangent about "false marking" claims, which topic had not been under discussion, Lonnie.

My comments: I also prefaced my statement as an aside or a side note. The vast majority of false marking claims were brought up by NPEs, non-practicing entities, who made no products of their own and only existed to bring lawsuits under patent statutes. Once you open a door to an issue, you should be prepared for where that issue might lead.

Once again you bring up your classic ad hominem statements about "Lonnie." I think you need psychiatric assistance with your problem.

I said:

which is an issue that you brought up.

None/Stephan said:

Classic pontification.

My comments: Umm, no, continually saying "classic pontification," "classic erroneous presumption," et al., are all statements of dogma, which is the underpinning of pontification. Ergo, you are the one pontificating here.

I said:

If NPEs are important, then my comment is relevant.

None/Stephan said:

Classic erroneous presupposition.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

I said:

If they are not important or relevant, why did YOU bring them up in the first place?

None/Stephan said:

Classic erroneous presupposition.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

I said:

You have not proven that anything that I have said is either classic, erroneous, or a presumption. What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

I said:

Your unsupported statement that such is the case is irrelevant.

None/Stephan said:

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

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

I said:

In fact, by making this statement you once again side step the issue.

None/Stephan said:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Rather ironic, too, coming from the person who threw up a completely random tangent about "false marking" complaints to side step the original issue.

My comments: The issue of false marking lawsuits by NPEs was clearly an additional issue to the support I provided to my original comments. You, on the other hand, continuously try to avoid dealing with the original issues and continue to bring irrelevancies. Stay on the original subject, please.

I said:

Furthermore, you have failed to respond to a previous question as to what "Lonnie" means.

None/Stephan said:

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

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

I said:

Is this some obscure insult?

None/Stephan said:

What does your ridiculous question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? It's your name, Lonnie. It's written on your birth certificate, followed by "E. Holder", Lonnie. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

My comments: Well, then you are wrong. There is no one here using the name "Lonnie."

I said:

Explain why my statement is either classic or a pontification.

None/Stephan said:

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

My comment: About as much as your original statement did, which I previously point out, and which you have sidestepped, again. If you are not going to talk about monopoly, why talk at all?

I said:

The statement is a statement of the so-called "patent bargain" which is well documented and described in both intellectual property AND anti-intellectual property literature.

None/Stephan said:

Classic pontification.

My comments: Regardless of what you call it, the patent bargain is the basis for the patent system we have today.

I said:

It is the means by which Congress has chosen to promote the progress.

None/Stephan said:

Classic erroneous presupposition that it is the sole means. More correct would be to say that it is a means by which Congress has chosen to promote the progress, Lonnie.

My comments: After five pages of nonsense from you, you actually make a position statement. Congratulations! Perhaps there is some hope for you yet.

Now, since you are making the statement that I am presupposing that the patent bargain is the sole means that Congress has chosen, with respect to patents, to promote the progress, you should elucidate us as to what the other mechanisms may be. I am sure we will be thrilled with your erudition.

I said:

Earlier you said that by making the statement I just made that I was putting the cart before the horse.

None/Wax said:

Classic pontification.

My comment: Regardless of what you call it, you made the statement. Deny it so I may call you a liar again.

I said:

Now you are agreeing with me even though you previously disagreed with me.

None/Stephan said:

Classic erroneous presupposition that it's my position that's changed.

My comment: Actually, it is apparent in reading the comments that you have changed your positions a couple of times. You try to distract readers by throwing out nonsensical statements such as "classic erroneous presumption," "classic pontification," etc., but the reality is that intelligent readers recognize that you are merely avoiding the issues.

I said:

Learning at last, Stephan, or just suffering from memory problems?

None/Stephan said:

Who is "Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in these blog comments using that alias.

My comment: Who is "Lonnie," Stephan/Beeswax? There is no one in these blog comments using that alias. Stephan is your real name, in addition to "Kinsella." Have your forgotten who you are?

I said:

As an aside, prove that my statements are either classic or pontifications.

None/Stephan said:

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

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification. Stay on the subject, please.

Since the topic of conversation has gone on a major tangent, thanks to Beeswax/Stephan, now might be a good time to restate the original issues, with some clarification since Beeswax clearly has comprehension issues:

John Bennett:

You make some huge leaps or assumptions in your post.

First, you say that the story fails to make the most important point, that patents under the U.S. Constitution are intended to foster innovation. That was not the most important point of the article, and having read the article several times, it appears that the article would have had to be re-written to focus on the intent of patent systems rather than the need for change in the German patent system to make it less friendly to patent holders.

Second, one intent of the U.S. patent system might be to foster innovation, but the stated purpose of the patent system (as opposed to what the U.S. Constitution might say) was to get people to reveal their knowledge to the wider world faster in exchange for full disclosure of the invention. Thomas Jefferson's thought was that if people reveal what they know, then others can build on that knowledge faster, which indirectly should help speed innovation as compared to people hiding knowledge. Two months after the original patent law was passed, Jefferson remarked it had "given a spring to invention beyond his conception," evidence that the patent act in fact was "promoting the progress."

After your introductory comments you diverge completely from the article and throw in beliefs that have nothing to do with the article at all. For example, while current company practice may be to treat patents like property, it is irrelevant how companies treat patents. What is important is how the court system and laws treat patents. And your statements have nothing to do with the situation in Germany.

Next, you then throw in a statement that is even more irrelevant and unsupported, that somehow patents are extended into perpetuity by changes in the law, even though the life of patents has been changed once in the last 100 years to effectively shorten their life. This shortening was effected by changing the life of a patent from 17 years after issuing (which in some cases has effectively increased the life of a patent to decades), to 20 years after the date of filing, which encourages applicants to speed the process and to not hide knowledge.

I guess you may as well heap on more irrelevancies by claiming that patents are an important way to increase profits. Important to whom? How many companies find patents to be an important way to increase profits? How many of those companies are NPEs and how many are companies with an actual product? Even if patents are not "important" in increasing profits, how many have actually had a measurable increase in profits because they have patents? Considering the relatively small number of patents that are ever litigated (depending on whose analysis you believe, somewhere between 0.75% and 1.5% of all patents are ever in a dispute), it hardly seems likely that patents are an important way to increase profits for very many companies.

Then you change the subject completely by throwing in copyrights, which are completely different from patents.

Skipping past the irrelevancy, if patent lawyers are dominating our politics and writing laws that favor themselves, they are doing it wrong. All Congress and the courts in the United States have done for most of the last decade is to decrease the power and value of patents (Bilski and the very recent Prometheus decision come to mind, among others and among a series of laws decreasing the ability of obtaining patents). So, if lawyers are in control of our politics and having laws written that favor patents, they are REALLY doing it wrong.

While we are asking candidates about their views on the issue (Obama says he's all for strong IP rights; of course, he also said that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress - apparently there are a lot of people who have no clue what they are talking about), we can ask them how coherent and understandable your post is.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax attempts to write:

And succeeds, Lonnie.

My comment: Well, Stephan/Beeswax, you brought up reading comprehension, or are you suffering from memory loss and reading comprehension problems?

Who is "Stephan/Beeswax", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

If you are going to bring it up, you should be prepared to discuss it rather than trying to side step it.

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

If you are going to complain about non-monopoly related subjects, then stop bringing them up.

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

Stephan/None of Your said:

Who is "Stephan/None of Your", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: Are you fixated on "Lonnie"?

No. What does your question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Do you dream about her or him?

Do you normally speak about yourself in the third person, Lonnie?

You seem to have some sort of issues with this person or insult.

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

You claim my statement is classic. I thank you for that. However, you have proven neither that my statement is erroneous nor that it is a presupposition.

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

Indeed, you already admitted from your comments that my reading comprehension is fine.

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

On the other hand, I am having serious doubts about yours.

What do your misplaced doubts have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

As a secondary issue, my statements related to my reading comprehension of monopoly related issues. Your statement, on the other hand, is totally unrelated to monopoly.

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

Stay on track please, Stephan/None of Your.

Who is "Stephan/None of Your", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: Stephan/None of You, who cares about patent trolls?

Who is "Stephan/None of You", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

They are not the subject of my conversation.

Then your "conversation" is irrelevant.

As was made quite clear by John Bennett in his statements, and mine, the subject is companies that have non-patent income that also supposedly gain important sources of revenue from patents.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The only one who has claimed the subject is limited to "companies that have non-patent income" has been you, Lonnie.

The question is: How many such companies exist?

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The question is how many companies rely on patents for at least some of their income, Lonnie.

However, I am curious about patent trolls as well. How many trolls exist, and how many of those are profitable?

Perhaps you should Google it, Lonnie.

You really are fixated on "Lonnie," aren't you? Try a different insult, because this one does not affect me.

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

My comments: Since it is irrelevant to you, why keep bringing it up?

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

It is clear from what John Bennett said that this is the primary issue.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

My comment: Good, we are getting somewhere.

Are we? You still seem to be stuck, Lonnie.

Then stop saying my comments about NPE's are irrelevant.

Classic erroneous presupposition. I said your comments about "false marking" claims were irrelevant, Lonnie.

My comments: The same tired old comment, Stephan/None?

Who is "Stephan/None", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

Thank you for saying my statement is classic. Compliments are always appreciated. However, you have not proven that my statement is erroneous.

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

In fact, reading your previous responses, it is readily apparent that you have contradicted yourself at least a couple of times.

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

None of/Stephan said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You went onto a completely irrelevant tangent about "false marking" claims, which topic had not been under discussion, Lonnie.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "None of/Stephan", Lonnie.

My comments: I also prefaced my statement as an aside or a side note.

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

The vast majority of false marking claims were brought up by NPEs, non-practicing entities, who made no products of their own and only existed to bring lawsuits under patent statutes.

Irrelevant.

Once you open a door to an issue, you should be prepared for where that issue might lead.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Once again you bring up your classic ad hominem statements about "Lonnie."

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

I think you need psychiatric assistance with your problem.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: Umm, no, continually saying "classic pontification," "classic erroneous presumption," et al., are all statements of dogma, which is the underpinning of pontification.

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

Ergo, you are the one pontificating here.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: The issue of false marking lawsuits by NPEs was clearly an additional issue to the support I provided to my original comments.

It was an irrelevant smokescreen, Lonnie.

You, on the other hand, continuously try to avoid dealing with the original issues and continue to bring irrelevancies.

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

Stay on the original subject, please.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

Yet again with the vague, irrelevant ad hominem. Use of ad hominem will not avail you in establishing a reasonable or logical position.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: Well, then you are wrong. There is no one here using the name "Lonnie."

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: About as much as your original statement did, which I previously point out, and which you have sidestepped, again. If you are not going to talk about monopoly, why talk at all?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: Regardless of what you call it, the patent bargain is the basis for the patent system we have today.

Classic pontification.

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments: After five pages of nonsense from you,

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

you actually make a position statement. Congratulations! Perhaps there is some hope for you yet.

Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Now, since you are making the statement that I am presupposing that the patent bargain is the sole means that Congress has chosen, with respect to patents, to promote the progress,

Classic erroneous presupposition. You erroneously implied that it was the sole means that Congress has chosen to promote the progress, period, Lonnie. Suffering from memory problems, Lonnie?

you should elucidate us as to what the other mechanisms may be.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

I am sure we will be thrilled with your erudition.

Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

My comment: Regardless of what you call it, you made the statement.

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

Deny it so I may call you a liar again.

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

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: Actually, it is apparent in reading the comments that you have changed your positions a couple of times.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You try to distract readers by throwing out nonsensical statements

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

such as "classic erroneous presumption," "classic pontification," etc., but the reality is that intelligent readers recognize that you are merely avoiding the issues.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: Who is "Lonnie," Stephan/Beeswax?

Who is "Stephan/Beeswax", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

There is no one in these blog comments using that alias.

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

Stephan is your real name, in addition to "Kinsella."

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

Have your forgotten who you are?

What does your ridiculous question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

None/Stephan said:

Who is "None/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comment: You statement is a classic irrelevant pontification.

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

Stay on the subject, please.

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

Since the topic of conversation has gone on a major tangent, thanks to Beeswax/Stephan, now might be a good time to restate the original issues,

Who is "Beeswax/Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

with some clarification since Beeswax clearly has comprehension issues:

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

You make some huge leaps or assumptions in your post.

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

First, you say that the story fails to make the most important point, that patents under the U.S. Constitution are intended to foster innovation. That was not the most important point of the article, and having read the article several times, it appears that the article would have had to be re-written to focus on the intent of patent systems rather than the need for change in the German patent system to make it less friendly to patent holders.

The intent behind patent systems is crucial to determining their proper scope and when an excess has begun to defeat the purpose, Lonnie.

Second, one intent of the U.S. patent system might be to foster innovation, but the stated purpose of the patent system (as opposed to what the U.S. Constitution might say) was to get people to reveal their knowledge to the wider world faster in exchange for full disclosure of the invention.

Classic erroneous presupposition that "the stated purpose of the patent system" is anything other than the Progress Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson's thought was that if people reveal what they know, then others can build on that knowledge faster, which indirectly should help speed innovation as compared to people hiding knowledge.

Classic pontification, and irrelevant, Lonnie, since it doesn't change the fact that granting a temporary monopoly is also intended as a direct incentive to innovation. (One that studies have shown is of dubious effectiveness, though.)

Two months after the original patent law was passed, Jefferson remarked it had "given a spring to invention beyond his conception," evidence that the patent act in fact was "promoting the progress."

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. It is well known that Jefferson was against patents, Lonnie.

After your introductory comments you diverge completely from the article and throw in beliefs that have nothing to do with the article at all.

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

For example, while current company practice may be to treat patents like property, it is irrelevant how companies treat patents.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. It is very relevant to those of us concerned about the effects these monopolies are having on innovation and even life and liberty, Lonnie.

What is important is how the court system and laws treat patents.

Classic erroneous presupposition that nothing else is also important, Lonnie.

And your statements have nothing to do with the situation in Germany.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Next, you then throw in a statement that is even more irrelevant and unsupported, that somehow patents are extended into perpetuity by changes in the law,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

even though the life of patents has been changed once in the last 100 years to effectively shorten their life.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, Lonnie.

This shortening was effected by changing the life of a patent from 17 years after issuing (which in some cases has effectively increased the life of a patent to decades), to 20 years after the date of filing, which encourages applicants to speed the process and to not hide knowledge.

Classic illogic. Lengthening the term by three years does not shorten it, Lonnie. Suffering from math problems, Lonnie?

I guess you may as well heap on more irrelevancies by claiming that patents are an important way to increase profits.

Classic erroneous presupposition. However, patents are the only way that some companies make any profits at all, Lonnie, as you would know by now if you had better reading comprehension skills.

Important to whom? How many companies find patents to be an important way to increase profits? How many of those companies are NPEs and how many are companies with an actual product? Even if patents are not "important" in increasing profits, how many have actually had a measurable increase in profits because they have patents?

Perhaps you should try your queries on Google, Lonnie.

Considering the relatively small number of patents that are ever litigated (depending on whose analysis you believe, somewhere between 0.75% and 1.5% of all patents are ever in a dispute), it hardly seems likely that patents are an important way to increase profits for very many companies.

Classic erroneous presupposition. Patents are the sole source of profits for a sizable class of companies, Lonnie, namely patent trolls, thereby increasing them from zero and being absolutely crucial to those companies for them to be profitable at all. But this has come up in this thread before, so you'd know this by now if you had better reading comprehension skills, Lonnie.

Then you change the subject completely by throwing in copyrights, which are completely different from patents.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Skipping past the irrelevancy, if patent lawyers are dominating our politics and writing laws that favor themselves, they are doing it wrong.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

All Congress and the courts in the United States have done for most of the last decade is to decrease the power and value of patents (Bilski and the very recent Prometheus decision come to mind, among others and among a series of laws decreasing the ability of obtaining patents).

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They lengthened the patent term twice, Lonnie, which you would know by now if you had better reading comprehension skills.

So, if lawyers are in control of our politics and having laws written that favor patents, they are REALLY doing it wrong.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

While we are asking candidates about their views on the issue (Obama says he's all for strong IP rights; of course, he also said that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress - apparently there are a lot of people who have no clue what they are talking about),

How ironic.

we can ask them how coherent and understandable your post is.

It is highly unlikely that they will answer, Lonnie.

Beeswax:

Nothing like catching you in an outright erroneous statement. In your last post, you said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They [patent terms] were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, [vicious ad hominem deleted].

Here are the facts, nONe of YOUR beeswAX:

Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

The 1836 patent act provided that an extension of 7 years to the 14 year term could be granted under certain circumstances, increasing the potential life of a patent to 21 years.

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance, SHORTENING the potential life of a patent from 21 years to 17 years.

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years from the date of earliest filing. This last change was done in conformance to world-wide standard and to eliminate the infamous submarine patent, which in some extreme cases gave a patent extremely long life.

In one famous case, Gordon Gould applied for a key laser-related patent on April 6, 1959. Gould was able to keep the application alive until it finally issued on July 17, 1979 with a life of 17 years. Thus, the patent ended up with a life of 37 years from the date of earliest filing. Under the current rules, the life of a patent has been reduced from an undetermined length of time to 20 years from the date of filing, largely eliminating submarine patents.

So, the statutory term of patents was reduced once, and the potential term of patents was reduced once.

Beeswax:

You stated: It is well known that Jefferson was against patents,

Except, this statement is not precise. Yes, Jefferson WAS against patents, but he changed his mind with time.

From 1789:

Writing to James Madison, Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 15:368.]

June 27, 1790:

(Jefferson to Benjamin Vaughan). "An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 16:579]

I also recommend to you some very interesting reading by Adam Mossoff, titled "Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought about Patents? Reevaluating the Patent "Privilege" in Historical Context." [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062] This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas. The paper is very interesting reading as to the historical record regarding patents in early America. I strongly suggest you read it.

Beeswax:

I should have pointed out in my comments regarding patent term, that John Bennett's statement:

They treat patents as a thing owned like land and physical objects, (in practice in perpetuity by amending the law to extend their life). Patents then become an important way to increase profits.

Since the maximum patent term was 21 years in the period from 1836 to 1861, and has been shorter than 21 years since 1861, then John Bennett's statement about patent life clearly has no basis in fact.

Now, logically speaking, John Bennett tied "an important way to increase profits" to the alleged (and false) extension of patent life, and since the first statement is false, then the second statement must also be false because it depends on the accuracy of the first statement.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

Nothing like catching you in an outright erroneous statement.

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

In your last post, you said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They [patent terms] were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, [vicious ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I didn't write that, Lonnie. You have dishonestly altered the quotation.

Here are the facts, nONe of YOUR beeswAX:

Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance,

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years

Classic pontification.

In one famous case, Gordon Gould applied for a key laser-related patent on April 6, 1959. Gould was able to keep the application alive until it finally issued on July 17, 1979 with a life of 17 years. Thus, the patent ended up with a life of 37 years from the date of earliest filing.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since only during the 17 years the patent was active could it be enforced.

So, the statutory term of patents was reduced once, and the potential term of patents was reduced once.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The term was extended, twice.

You stated: It is well known that Jefferson was against patents,

Except, this statement is not precise.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Yes, Jefferson WAS against patents, but he changed his mind with time.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas.

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, Lonnie.

I should have pointed out in my comments regarding patent term, that John Bennett's statement:

They treat patents as a thing owned like land and physical objects, (in practice in perpetuity by amending the law to extend their life). Patents then become an important way to increase profits.

Since the maximum patent term was 21 years in the period from 1836 to 1861, and has been shorter than 21 years since 1861, then John Bennett's statement about patent life clearly has no basis in fact.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The patent term has never been longer than 20 years.

Now, logically speaking, John Bennett tied "an important way to increase profits" to the alleged (and false) extension of patent life, and since the first statement is false, then the second statement must also be false because it depends on the accuracy of the first statement.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Beeswax:

I said:

Nothing like catching you in an outright erroneous statement.

You said:

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

My comment:

What does you classic irrelevant presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

I quoted Beeswax:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They [patent terms] were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, [vicious ad hominem deleted].

You said:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I didn't write that, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. You have dishonestly altered the quotation.

My comments:

The only place I modified your statement I indicated with brackets. The first alteration was to explain that "they" are patent terms. The second alteration was to delete a fallacious and vicious ad hominem. Furthermore, since my comment was related to your comments, then you must ask yourself, what do your irrelevant comments have to do with monopoly?

I said:

Here are the facts, nONe of YOUR beeswAX:

Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance,

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years

You said:

Classic pontification.

My comments:

You have dishonestly deleted some of the information I provided. My complete statement, with all information intact, is as follows:

"Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

The 1836 patent act provided that an extension of 7 years to the 14 year term could be granted under certain circumstances, increasing the potential life of a patent to 21 years.

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance, SHORTENING the potential life of a patent from 21 years to 17 years.

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years from the date of earliest filing. This last change was done in conformance to world-wide standard and to eliminate the infamous submarine patent, which in some extreme cases gave a patent extremely long life."

You deliberately tried to hide the fact that the statutory term of patents has been reduced once, and the effective potential term has been reduced once during the elimination of submarine patents. So patent terms have been reduced twice, in spite of your false claims that they have never been reduced, liar.

I said:

In one famous case, Gordon Gould applied for a key laser-related patent on April 6, 1959. Gould was able to keep the application alive until it finally issued on July 17, 1979 with a life of 17 years. Thus, the patent ended up with a life of 37 years from the date of earliest filing.

You said:

Irrelevant, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted], since only during the 17 years the patent was active could it be enforced.

My comments:

Classic erroneous presupposition. In fact, under provisional rights, 35 U.S.C. 154 (d), which you may find at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154, there are circumstances where a patent application may be enforced during the period after the application publishes and prior to issuance. Thus, the potential enforcement period extends from the time an application is published until the expiration of the patent, which is longer than 17 years.

Since you wish to hang your hat on enforcement periods, then let's briefly discuss the potential length of enforcement of present patents.

Since patents now expire after 20 years after filing in the USPTO, and because of the lengthy period of patent prosecution, many patents, if not most patents, are issuing anywhere from 3 to 10 years after filing, which may leave 10-17 years of enforceable life for a patent. This situation was so bad for pharmaceutical patents that Congress added a stipulation that guaranteed 14 years of life for pharmaceutical patents after issuance. So, under the present system, the average enforceable life of patents is shorter than it was with the 17 year life after issuance.

I said:

So, the statutory term of patents was reduced once, and the potential term of patents was reduced once.

You said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The term was extended, twice.

My comments:

I provided detailed data. My claim is neither unsubstantiated nor is it erroneous. However, you may find some information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States.

You said:

It is well known that Jefferson was against patents,

I said:

Except, this statement is not precise.

You said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

My commets:

You comment is intellectually dishonest. Fundamentally, you lied. Not only did I provide you with pro-patent quotes from Thomas Jefferson, I provided you with references for those quotes. If you are going to be a liar, at least be more subtle about it.

I said:

Yes, Jefferson WAS against patents, but he changed his mind with time.

You said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

My comment:

Liar. My comments were well supported.

From 1789:

Writing to James Madison, Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 15:368.]

June 27, 1790:

(Jefferson to Benjamin Vaughan). "An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 16:579]

I did not say, because you dishonestly deleted portions of my comment:

This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas.

You said:

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comments:

First, my entire comment was:

I also recommend to you some very interesting reading by Adam Mossoff, titled "Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought about Patents? Reevaluating the Patent "Privilege" in Historical Context." [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062] This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas. The paper is very interesting reading as to the historical record regarding patents in early America. I strongly suggest you read it.

My agenda is truth. Yours, based on your dishonest partial quotations of my comments, is lies and historical distortions. The paper is well-supported and an excellent history of how Jefferson's comment have been misused, most particularly by Libertarians, in support of "natural rights."

I said:

I should have pointed out in my comments regarding patent term, that John Bennett's statement:

They treat patents as a thing owned like land and physical objects, (in practice in perpetuity by amending the law to extend their life). Patents then become an important way to increase profits.

Since the maximum patent term was 21 years in the period from 1836 to 1861, and has been shorter than 21 years since 1861, then John Bennett's statement about patent life clearly has no basis in fact.

You said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The patent term has never been longer than 20 years.

My comments:

Your statement is a lie. Patent terms were up to 21 years during the period 1836 to 1860.

I said:

Now, logically speaking, John Bennett tied "an important way to increase profits" to the alleged (and false) extension of patent life, and since the first statement is false, then the second statement must also be false because it depends on the accuracy of the first statement.

You said:

Classic erroneous presupposition.

My comments:

What does your fallacious and dishonest presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

It is quite sad that you resort to taking my quotes out of context, distorting my words, and eliminating my references. If lies and dishonest are the best responses you have to facts, is it any wonder that the anti-IP crowd continues to grow smaller with time?

Alonniemouse wrote:

You said:

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

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does you classic irrelevant presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that I made an irrelevant presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I quoted Beeswax:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They [patent terms] were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, [vicious ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[vicious ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

You said:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I didn't write that, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. You have dishonestly altered the quotation.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

The only place I modified your statement I indicated with brackets.

You admit to misquoting me, then, Lonnie? Classic dishonesty on your part, Lonnie.

The first alteration was to explain that "they" are patent terms.

That much is clear from the context of the discussion, Lonnie.

The second alteration was to delete a fallacious and vicious ad hominem.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that my comment contained a "fallacious and vicious ad hominem" have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Furthermore, since my comment was related to your comments, then you must ask yourself, what do your irrelevant comments have to do with monopoly?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

You have dishonestly deleted some of the information I provided.

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

Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years

Classic pontification.

You deliberately tried to hide the fact that the statutory term of patents has been reduced once,

Classic erroneous presupposition that the term has been reduced.

and the effective potential term has been reduced once during the elimination of submarine patents.

Classic erroneous presupposition that that constitutes a term reduction. It just moves the entire duration of the monopoly earlier in time without making that duration any shorter. Or do you believe that if a television show normally airs from 9 to 10 pm, but this is changed on one night to 8 to 9 pm to make room for a hockey playoff game starting at 9 that night, it becomes shorter than one hour in the process, Lonnie?

So patent terms have been reduced twice,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

in spite of your false claims that they have never been reduced, liar.

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

You said:

Irrelevant, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted], since only during the 17 years the patent was active could it be enforced.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

On your part, Lonnie.

I provided detailed data.

Isolated anecdotes and other irrelevant data, Lonnie.

My claim is neither unsubstantiated nor is it erroneous.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

My commets:

What are "commets", Lonnie, and what do they have to do with monopoly?

You comment is intellectually dishonest. Fundamentally, you lied.

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

Not only did I provide you with pro-patent quotes from Thomas Jefferson, I provided you with references for those quotes.

Anyone can be made to appear to support any position by taking quotes out of context, Lonnie.

If you are going to be a liar, at least be more subtle about it.

Classic erroneous presupposition, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Liar. My comments were well supported.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I did not say, because you dishonestly deleted portions of my comment:

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

This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas.

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, Lonnie.

You said:

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

My agenda is truth.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If your agenda was truth you'd be in favor of patent abolition after reading the content at this site, Lonnie.

Yours, based on your dishonest partial quotations of my comments, is lies and historical distortions.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

The paper is well-supported and an excellent history of how Jefferson's comment have been misused, most particularly by Libertarians, in support of "natural rights."

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Patents are a violation of property rights, free enterprise, and, in the case of software, gene, and business method patents, free speech, Lonnie.

Your statement is a lie. Patent terms were up to 21 years during the period 1836 to 1860.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

What does your fallacious and dishonest presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that I wrote any "fallacious and dishonest presupposition" have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

It is quite sad that you resort to taking my quotes out of context, distorting my words, and eliminating my references. If lies and dishonest are the best responses you have to facts, is it any wonder that the anti-IP crowd continues to grow smaller with time?

Classic erroneous presuppositions, laced with invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument. Meanwhile, the anti-IP crowd continues to grow and become more mainstream, as evidenced by the widespread SOPA protests in the US and the widespread ACTA protests and growing influence of the Pirate Party in Europe, Lonnie.

Beeswax said:

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

beeswax said again:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

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

Call me by a name that is not mine and I will keep deleting it.

I said:

What does you classic irrelevant presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

beeswax responded:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that I made an irrelevant presupposition have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

Why are you compounding your previous erroneous statement with yet another one, that has nothing to do with monopoly, beeswax?

I quoted Beeswax:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They [patent terms] were lengthened from 14 years to 17 and again from 17 years to 20. At no time has their term been shortened, [vicious ad hominem deleted].

beeswax replied:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I never wrote "[vicious ad hominem deleted]", [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

I am deleting a nonsense name in my responses, using brackets, which is generally accepted when substituting the words of the author. Still suffering reading comprehension problems, beeswax?

beeswax said:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I didn't write that, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. You have dishonestly altered the quotation.

beeswax added:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

I am deleting a nonsense name in my responses, using brackets, which is generally accepted when substituting the words of the author. Still suffering reading comprehension problems, beeswax?

I said:

The only place I modified your statement I indicated with brackets.

beeswax said:

You admit to misquoting me, then, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? Classic dishonesty on your part, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comments:

I deleted the vicious and potentially slanderous ad hominem that you added to your comments, noting the replacement in brackets, which is accepted practice. Still suffering reading comprehension problems, beeswax?

I said:

The first alteration was to explain that "they" are patent terms.

beeswax responds:

That much is clear from the context of the discussion, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comment:

Perhaps it was clear, perhaps not. I thought it added clarity to make the addition of my comment in brackets. Since you agree that my statement is relevant, and it was appropriately added in brackets, what is your problem? Still suffering from reading comprehension issues, beeswax?

I said:

The second alteration was to delete a fallacious and vicious ad hominem.

beeswax replied:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that my comment contained a "fallacious and vicious ad hominem" have to do with monopoly, [fallacious and vicious ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

What does your addition of fallacious and vicious ad hominems have to do with monopoly, beeswax? You stop calling me names, I will stop deleting them in quotes.

I said:

Furthermore, since my comment was related to your comments, then you must ask yourself, what do your irrelevant comments have to do with monopoly? Classic erroneous presupposition.

beeswax reponds:

You have dishonestly deleted some of the information I provided. What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [fallacious and vicious ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

I only replaced slanderous and vicious ad hominems with a notation that I removed them. They have nothing to do with monopoly and you should refrain from using them.

beeswax dishonestly edited my comments as follows:

Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years." In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years

beeswax then lies:

Classic pontification.

My full comment, repeated again, was as follow:

"Under the 1790 patent act, the term of a patents was "not exceeding 14 years."

The 1836 patent act provided that an extension of 7 years to the 14 year term could be granted under certain circumstances, increasing the potential life of a patent to 21 years.

In 1861, the life of patents was fixed at 17 years from the date of issuance, SHORTENING the potential life of a patent from 21 years to 17 years.

In 1995, the term of a patent was adjusted from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years from the date of earliest filing. This last change was done in conformance to world-wide standard and to eliminate the infamous submarine patent, which in some extreme cases gave a patent extremely long life."

You deliberately tried to hide the fact that the statutory term of patents has been reduced once, and the effective potential term has been reduced once during the elimination of submarine patents. So patent terms have been reduced twice, in spite of your false claims that they have never been reduced, liar.

I said:

You deliberately tried to hide the fact that the statutory term of patents has been reduced once,

beeswax lies:

Classic erroneous presupposition that the term has been reduced.

Wrong, again. The term was reduced by the patent act of 1861, and the timing of patent terms was reduced again to prevent submarine patents by changing the life of a patent from the date it issues to the date it was filed. The first was a statutory reduction. The second was an effective reduction.

beeswax dishonestly deleted portions of my comments and left:

and the effective potential term has been reduced once during the elimination of submarine patents.

beeswax then attempts to cloud the issue:

Classic erroneous presupposition that that constitutes a term reduction. It just moves the entire duration of the monopoly earlier in time without making that duration any shorter. Or do you believe that if a television show normally airs from 9 to 10 pm, but this is changed on one night to 8 to 9 pm to make room for a hockey playoff game starting at 9 that night, it becomes shorter than one hour in the process, [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

Your example is irrelevant and inappropriate. A better example would be that if a hockey game went beyond its allotted time slot of 6-8 PM, the following show was joined in progress at 8:15, reducing its potential maximum time from 1 hour to 45 minutes.

I said:

So patent terms have been reduced twice,

beeswax claims:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

My comments:

beeswax, your statement flies in the face of the facts and of logic. The laws were changed, you were wrong. Deal with it and move on.

I said:

in spite of your false claims that they have never been reduced, liar.

beeswax tries to avoid the issue, again:

Who is "liar", [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this blog's comments using that alias.

My comments:

beeswax, you are a liar. That is not a name, that is a characteristic.

beeswax said:

Irrelevant, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted], since only during the 17 years the patent was active could it be enforced.

beeswax then adds further irrelevancies:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted]? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

Your statements become more confused and slanderous with time. Are you so desperate that your only option is to call people names and attempt to obfuscate the nature of the conversation?

I said:

I provided detailed data.

beeswax replies:

Isolated anecdotes and other irrelevant data, Lonnie.

My comments:

False and erroneous assertion not based in fact. I made factual statements supported by references that were related to monopoly. You on the other hand, completely avoided the issue of monopoly, particularly its historical aspects.

I said:

Not only did I provide you with pro-patent quotes from Thomas Jefferson, I provided you with references for those quotes.

beeswax said:

Anyone can be made to appear to support any position by taking quotes out of context, [slanderous and irrelevant ad hominem deleted].

My comment:

How fortunate, then, that I did not take statements out of context and instead provided complete quotes. If you want to talk about taking things out of context, the lengthy paragraph from Thomas Jefferson where he talks about ideas that is so often quoted by Libertarians as being an anti-patent statement was taken out of context. That quote is from a series of dialogues between two individuals trying to determine whether patents would be advantageous or disadvantageous. Jefferson ultimately concluded that if they were carefully implemented, they could result in advantages to the United States. Jefferson was a smart man.

I said:

If you are going to be a liar, at least be more subtle about it.

beeswax replies

Classic erroneous presupposition, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

My comments:

Classic irrelevant and extraneous comments, laced with inflammatory language, as expected from someone who deletes the logical arguments of another because he or she is incapable of overcoming those arguments.

I said:

Liar. My comments were well supported.

beeswax said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

My comments:

Classic irrelevant and extraneous comments, laced with inflammatory language, as expected from someone who deletes the logical arguments of another because he or she is incapable of overcoming those arguments.

I said:

I did not say, because you dishonestly deleted portions of my comment:

beeswax said:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [slanderous and irrelevant name deleted]?

My comments:

Classic irrelevant and extraneous comments, laced with inflammatory language, as expected from someone who deletes the logical arguments of another because he or she is incapable of overcoming those arguments.

I said:

This paper provides significant evidence that the historical record regarding Jefferson's influence on patent history has been misused and misinterpreted, generally intentionally, to serve specific agendas.

beeswax said:

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, Lonnie.

My comments:

If we are examining a historical record, and the accuracy of that record, and the conclusion is that the record is pro-patent, what does that have to do with my agenda or your agenda? The facts should speak for themselves.

beeswax said:

Specifically, your pro-patent agenda, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

beeswax added:

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I never wrote "[classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]", [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

What do your irrelevancies have to do with monopoly, beeswax? You keep repeating the same tired, vicious and irrelevant ad hominems and you expect me to accept those in quoting you? I think not. Why bother to use ad hominem at all if you have valid points? All you do is make clear that your position is weak.

I said:

My agenda is truth.

beeswax replies:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If your agenda was truth you'd be in favor of patent abolition after reading the content at this site, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comments:

My claim is supported by citations from books and papers. If your agenda was factual, you would cease using ad hominem and review the facts objectively. However, you are not interested in the truth, only your slanted view of what you believe the truth to be.

The problem is that the content at this site is biased and neglects significant portions of the evidence.

I said:

Yours, based on your dishonest partial quotations of my comments, is lies and historical distortions.

beeswax said:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

My comments:

I have caught you in lies so many times that it is pointless to be tactful. I see you lie, I call it out. Your multiple and repeated lies are to be expected from someone who lacks logical arguments and any historical support for their comments.

I said:

The paper is well-supported and an excellent history of how Jefferson's comment have been misused, most particularly by Libertarians, in support of "natural rights."

beeswax responds:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Patents are a violation of property rights, free enterprise, and, in the case of software, gene, and business method patents, free speech, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comments:

I respect your religious beliefs. I disagree with them for a variety of reasons, but I respect them. If you would stick to your faith instead of introducing lies and ignoring facts, our conversations would be much more interesting.

I said:

Your statement is a lie. Patent terms were up to 21 years during the period 1836 to 1860.

beeswax replied:

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

My comments:

You stated, clearly, several times, that patent terms have never been reduced. The first time I provided you with accurate historical information regarding the decrease in term from 21 years to 17 years, and you deleted it. I pointed out the same information again and you deleted it and repeated the same falsehood. The first time I can overlook. Your repeated distortion of the historical record constitutes a lie, which is a statement of observation of your actions and behavior. Someone typically lies when the facts do not support their beliefs, especially their religious beliefs.

I said:

What does your fallacious and dishonest presupposition have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

beeswax said:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that I wrote any "fallacious and dishonest presupposition" have to do with monopoly, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

My comments:

If you want to stay on topic, then stop bringing up fallacious and dishonest presuppositions that have nothing to do with monopoly.

I said:

It is quite sad that you resort to taking my quotes out of context, distorting my words, and eliminating my references. If lies and dishonest are the best responses you have to facts, is it any wonder that the anti-IP crowd continues to grow smaller with time?

beeswax claims:

Classic erroneous presuppositions, laced with invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument. Meanwhile, the anti-IP crowd continues to grow and become more mainstream, as evidenced by the widespread SOPA protests in the US and the widespread ACTA protests and growing influence of the Pirate Party in Europe, [classic erroneous ad hominem deleted].

My comments:

Re SOPA: I am against SOPA. Such a stupid piece of legislation that should never have been proposed. Being against SOPA is not necessarily anti-IP, it is anti-stupidity. ACTA falls in the same category.

As for the Pirate Party, its agenda seems limited to copyright, to the extent it has an agenda, and I dispute that it is spreading.

And, lest we forget...let's leave with these classic comments from Thomas Jefferson, a charter member of the IP Hall of Fame:

From 1789:

Writing to James Madison, Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 15:368.]

June 27, 1790:

(Jefferson to Benjamin Vaughan). "An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect." [Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-. 33 vols., August 28, 1789, 16:579]