The notion that patent trolls, made possible by the institution of patents, are a very serious impediment to innovation is slowly making its way in public opinion. A nice and recent example is a nice piece by NPR, the national public broadcaster in the US: When patents attack. The link includes an MP3 of the episode.

Hat tip: orgtheory.net.

Sorry for doubling up on Justin's post. I have been trying to post since yesterday, and I did not notice Justing did, and better, in the meanwhile.

Too bad we lost the post about the "review" of "Against Intellectual Monopoly," which pointed out a number of issues with the "proofs" provided in the book.

Anonymous wrote:

43> Blogs: Against Monopoly

43> Too bad we lost the post about the "review" of "Against
43> Intellectual Monopoly," which pointed out a number of
43> issues with the "proofs" provided in the book."

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Tholen:

Since the link to the paper has been removed, we will never know, will we? On the other hand, if you had read the paper, which I did, you would have seen that they point out some of the weaknesses in "Against Intellectual Monopoly." That is not an erroneous presumption, but an observation. Unless you are commenting on the comments in the paper.

Anonymous wrote:

Blogs: Against Monopoly

44> Tholen:

44> Since the link to the paper has been removed, we will never know,
44> will we? On the other hand, if you had read the paper, which I did,
44> you would have seen that they point out some of the weaknesses
44> in "Against Intellectual Monopoly."

Classic erroneous presupposition.

44> That is not an erroneous presumption, but an observation.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

44> Unless you are commenting on the comments in the paper.

I am commenting on your erroneous insinuations, on behalf of the copyright- and patent-reliant businesses that have hired you to spread FUD, that there is anything wrong with Against Intellectual Monopoly, "Anonymous".

Tholen:

You have made the erroneous statement that "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is somehow a flawless document. The numerous problems in "Against Intellectual Monopoly" have been documented by an array of researchers and analysts. I provide you with a few of analyses below:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/an343203j7835245/fulltext.html

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3h7363s3;jsessionid=36EA15B748CAF95F066F2B4838FA39B5#page-1

http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol5/iss3/art8/

Of course, reading these papers requires that you have an open, objective mind.

Anonymous writes:

45> Blogs: Against Monopoly

45> Tholen:

45> You have made the erroneous statement that "Against Intellectual
45> Monopoly" is somehow a flawless document.

Classic erroneous presupposition that that statement was erroneous. The document is right, Anonymous; copyright and patent law are wrong.

45> The numerous problems in "Against Intellectual Monopoly" have
45> been documented by an array of researchers and analysts.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

45> I provide you with a few of analyses below:

Who paid for your flawed analyses, Anonymous?

45> http://www.springerlink.com/content/an343203j7835245/fulltext.html

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

45> http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3h7363s3;jsessionid=36EA15B748CAF95F066F2B4838FA39B5#page-1

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

45> http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol5/iss3/art8/

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.

45> Of course, reading these papers requires that you have an
45> open, objective mind.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition that I lack one have to do with monopolies, Anonymous? Rather ironic, too, coming from a paid shill of Big Copyright and/or Big Patent whose own continued employment depends on his not understanding things, Anonymous.

Tholen:

I am wondering whether you read any of those papers.

Why would you think any of those papers are by me? They are by multiple authors, not one of whom is me.

Anonymous wrote:

47> Blogs: Against Monopoly

47> Tholen:

47> I am wondering whether you read any of those papers.

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Anonymous? I said they contained classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, Anonymous. How would I have reached that conclusion other than by reading those papers and finding them wanting, Anonymous?

47> Why would you think any of those papers are by me?

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Anonymous? I only insinuated that those studies were paid for by the same organizations that pay you to spread FUD here, Anonymous, not that you wrote them personally, Anonymous.

47> They are by multiple authors, not one of whom is me.

Another unsubstantiated claim. Since you're cleverly posting here as "Anonymous", Anonymous, we can't verify that, can we?

Tholen:

I have deleted all your scurrilous lies, so there is nothing to which I need respond. Furthermore, nothing that you have said or implied about me is at all true. I would suggest you come back when you have something valuable to say that is anything but an ad hominem attack, but since that is unlikely, go take your nonsense elsewhere.

Anonymous writes:

51> Blogs: Against Monopoly

51> Tholen:

51>I have deleted all your scurrilous lies,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that you have deleted anything, combined with your classic erroneous presupposition that I've told any "scurrilous lies", have to do with monopoly, Anonymous?

51> so there is nothing to which I need respond.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Anonymous? You have been challenged to provide evidence to back up your claim that you weren't an author of any of those erroneous papers, Anonymous, and you have yet to respond to that challenge.

51> Furthermore, nothing that you have said or implied about me is
51> at all true.

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

51> I would suggest you come back when you have something
51> valuable to say

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

51> that is anything but an ad hominem attack,

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

51> but since that is unlikely,

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

51> go take your nonsense elsewhere.

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

There is a serious issue being discussed in this thread. The three papers with internet addresses posted above challenge the methodology used in "Against Intellectual Monopoly." There are several different challenges, including erroneous presuppositions, excessive assumptions, leaps of logic, and insufficient objectivity. In addition to the papers listed above, there are a couple of others, with the members of at least four different universities and the Economic Association of America represented by papers that challenge the methodology of "Against Intellectual Monopoly."

Anonymous wrote:

55> Blogs: Against Monopoly

55> There is a serious issue being discussed in this thread.

Classic pontification.

55> The three papers with internet addresses posted above
55> challenge the methodology used in "Against Intellectual
55> Monopoly."

You already mentioned your baseless challenges, Anonymous. Why are you now going around in circles?

55> There are several different challenges, including erroneous
55> presuppositions, excessive assumptions, leaps of logic, and
55> insufficient objectivity.

On your part, Anonymous.

55> In addition to the papers listed above, there are a couple
55> of others, with the members of at least four different
55> universities and the Economic Association of America
55> represented by papers that challenge the methodology
55> of "Against Intellectual Monopoly."

There were at one a time a lot of flat Earthers, Anonymous, and lots more that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.