No. Perhaps the most classic recent case was the Blackberry affair: "NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - What would Osama bin Laden give to be able to knock out every BlackBerry in America and achieve an instant, sweeping disruption of commerce? The good news is he can't do it. The weird and disconcerting news is that a company called NTP can and, unless it's paid off, probably will sometime before Christmas." http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/28/technology/blackberry_fortune_121205/index.htm
"NTP was founded in 1991 by the late inventor Thomas Campana and his patent attorney, Donald Stout, of Arlington, Va. It has no employees and makes no products." In other words, it's a patent troll -- a company of lawyers that buys up patents on speculation and waits for someone to build a business on a similar idea and sue them. NTP got half a BILLION out of RIM (the company that makes the Blackberry). What's more, there was clear prior art in the case and the patent was later invalidated, but NTP had paid off the earlier inventor to keep quiet while the suit was in progress. (How NTP Kept Wireless Email Prior Art Quiet For $20,000 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060417/0324230.shtml ) Most actual patent suits are from companies like this, which don't make anything and exist only for extortion. Companies making and selling real inventions generally don't sue, they're busy doing real work. The evil effects of patent law thus have little to do with real inventors. It is that it provides an attractive path for people whose ONLY GOAL is extortion, to do so legally. Wave half a billion under someone's nose, and give their conscience the excuse that "hey, it's legal, isn't it?" and they'll leave their morals at home in droves. Josh On Saturday 02 June 2007 04:17:29 am YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote: > On 6/2/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also can you tell me what you're referring to by "well-documented social > > > > harm"? > > > > Monopoly rents > > http://www.friesian.com/rent.htm > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3AMonopoly_(economics) > > OK... I don't *have* the answer, just noting how complex this issue is... > > Wikipedia: "*Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated > value from others without making any contribution to productivity*". In the > case of (software) patents the inventors *do* have to work to acquire the > patents; and it seems that patents on the whole are conducive to R&D and > innovation, and it's unclear why software patents should be an exception. > > Also, patents do not imply monopoly. Also, antitrust breaks down > some monopolies, at the same time upholding patent laws. > > I guess rent-seeking happens with "obvious" patents that should not > be granted in the first place, eg the Amazon one-click. > > YKY > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
