Some people have a knack for inventing solutions to very difficult problems, and new solutions to old problems in disruptive ways.

In previous decades and back into the dawn of perceived and remarked time invention needed to be associated with manufacturing and delivery of some sort. Until the 1700’s people tried to hide the secrets of their creation. Patents came about not to support innovation but rather to support rapid improvement through disclosure for other inventors to penetrate the “secrets”.

In order to profit from an invention the inventor had to build a company in recent times and manufacture the creation and either sell or take the company public. Very recently before 2008 it became possible for inventors to sell their creations with only modest development. This is exactly what matches the temperament of many inventors (certainly my temperament). In this new world an inventor could pursue new things without being tied to a company or equally important a trial and a pack of lawyers.

There are some ways to imagine how the latter great inventing environment could be sustained without promulgating overly aggressive enforcement. If some would like to blog about this idea and the general idea of support for inventors and other very small business entities within the Institute please speak up!

I agree and indeed our software patents almost always have associated code as examples. In fact the Internet Patents we sold did not include the registered copyrights we still possess (along with an unlimited license to our own stuff). The buyer is I believe using the patents like RPX to protect from broad ranging Patent holders asserting infringement.

The problem is this some of the new ideas we do not have the resources to build but nonetheless we did invent them and have every right if we obtain a patent to benefit from them.

We inventors and the scientists who feed us new discoveries are the core of technology. Those who throw around the “T” word do not appear to spend much time finding out for instance that the entity Acacia has a special contingent payout to enforce a patent that the holder is rightfully asserting, one in which the holder or inventor truly broke new ground.

Part of the problem is that most people don’t know what an invention is, nor do they care. Further many people once an invention is common or if it is simple to implement believe it to be obvious and undeserving of “special” rights.

A few years ago I invented a solution that a crew of 10’s of Phds had been unable to imagine but had wanted for 28 years. Once described most of them could understand the solution and some began describing it as obvious. Others in the group actually took it overseas to develop and tried to patent it! Fortunately I had applied for a patent before demonstrating the idea but I am still trying to get the legal system to make it right.
Now it’s certainly true that my patent interferes with their right to innovate, and I’m not a manufacturer but this needs to be clear THEY WOULD STILL NOT HAVE THE SOLUTION AT ANY PRICE WITHOUT THE INVENTOR. So shall I be labeled with the “T” word?

Many of the software patents that are owned by Companies that are labeled Patent Trolls have little to no imagination or usability to them. They weren’t innovative and they didn’t benefit people.

I am a patent holder myself, and believe that my patent moved technology forward. But my patent was for a a specific machine that we spent a lot of time designing and building and made sure it worked before we ever got a patent on it.

I have also worked as a software programmer

Some of these patent trolls observed how computers were used on a network, then wrote patents that said “do that same function over the internet”. With software, there can be 100 ways to do a function. Software patents rarely if ever provide a code sample of how the company implemented the technology.

IMO the courts failed long ago when they didn’t require sofware patents to include the implementing code. That way if someone else does a similar function, but implemented a completely different way, they can’t patent their implementation. Think about automobile transmissions. People didn’t patent the idea of an automatic transmission, they implemented their design. Other companies patented their design. Each design and patent moved technology forward.

Nasty names, and attitudes that suggest there is no need for patents or revenues to inventors may well leave the US producing opposing versions of Uber Facebooks – all package no technology.

In the early portion of the last century, Thomas Edison (the inventor of the direct current electrical power transmission system) sent a road show to various cities and towns in which pigeons would be shocked to death using a machine based on the alternating current system of George Westinghouse and Nicola Tesla.

Edison explained to horrifed onlookers that he had “Westinghoused” the pigeons.

This nasty name, and attitude, did not stop George Westinghouse from innovating and improving the alternating current system. Westinghouse was probably motivated, even in the face of being called names, by the fact that AC power made him a millionaire many times over.

The myth is Norwegian and the meaning is of a prejudged non-human entity.

All invention is a deeply human activity, typically one or two people opening in many cases new doors for human endeavor. The road to innovation (reduction of an invention to a product delivered to a market) is long and complex and no simplistic prejudice has any place in the process.

Putting your all on the line to pursue an idea is a harrowing activity and yet it is the mainstay of our economy.

Nasty names, and attitudes that suggest there is no need for patents or revenues to inventors may well leave the US producing opposing versions of Uber Facebooks – all package no technology.

I wonder if there have been any blogs or discussions about perjury in civil litigation including perjurous statements by attorneys in opening and closing remarks?
Also self-perjured witnesses (witnesses whose statements in the trial record are fully perjurous that is they constitute a lie in and of themselves) e.g., Question What color is the object before you? Answer White; Question Would you like to change your earlier statement that it was Black? Answer No.

These perjuries are tolerated in California Courts.

Without enforcing truthful testimony and behavior of lawyers how can we have a legal system under law, not to mention a just legal system?

Sad experience makes this subject one of which I’m very mindful.

Glad I could be of service and bring a smile to your lips. It is a smile, right?