3 ms·

> An analogy is not a comparison An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. I don't even know what you're getting at here, other than trying unsuccessfully to n

> An analogy is not a comparison An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. I don't even know what you're getting at here, other than trying unsuccessfully to nitpick. > But I believe it's intellectually permissible for others to condemn Hitler in a sentence - without my extensive training in Hitler Studies. So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you. Got it. Because "knowing essentially nothing" is what we're talking about here. I'm not saying you need to be an attorney to comment intelligently. 15 minutes of reading, if one reads the right things, would teach him more than 90% of the people here know about patents. > Dewey, Cheatham and Howe How clever. Never heard that one before. > The only people who support the patent system are those who profit from it. I'm quite sure you're one of them. Wellll... yes, but not in the way you probably think. I'm not a patent troll, and I don't represent trolls. I write patents for inventors. Plain and simple. And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever engaged in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll. Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind... it would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of software patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would basically be de minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about software patents.

moldbug 15y ago
> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems. Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? > So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you. If the groupthink is right, yes. Groupthink isn't always right. It isn't always wrong. It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either. > I write patents for inventors. In other words, you're a patent lawyer. I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate. "The rockets go up - who knows where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun." > And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever engaged in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll. And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea. > Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind... it would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of software patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would basically be de minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about software patents. Since you're a patent lawyer, you know perfectly well that our patent system does not have the power to distinguish between "inventors" and "trolls." You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely. This would change your life, wouldn't it? And not for the better.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  > Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? Some women might actually take offense at that, but I'd say no. But throwing Hitler into the analogy really does change its flavor, doesn't it? We're not talking about bulls and cows here. The analogy your position:my position::Satan:Jesus is a little bit more in line with the inflammatory one you actually used above. And in a case like that, I think reading an analogy as a comparison is both inevitable and exactly what you intended. > It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong. > I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate. I've told inventors that I thought a particular application would be a challenge to get allowed. I've told inventors that in light of the prior art, they won't get a patent that's broad enough to be worth anything. And yes, on more than one occasion, I've told an inventor that I didn't believe he could get a patent on his idea. (Just a nitpick here, but I've never told an inventor I could get something patented. Nothing is assured, and sometimes you get an examiner that simply will not allow a case.) > And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea. I certainly wouldn't stick my head in the sand to avoid knowing how they use their patents. And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal. > You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook. Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen. > Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely. Aaaand here's where you go off the deep end. Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    > And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal. No. They aren't doing anything illegal. They're doing something evil. Mens rea is the mental state of doing evil. Not everything evil is illegal - for various reasons, some good and some bad. But the mental state is the same. Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy. Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass murder. It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's still evil, like Hitler. > But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong. Anyone is entitled to be right for any reason at all. You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies. Besides, you're missing something here. You make a living sending rockets up. We live where the rockets come down. The existence of rocket impacts is purely conjectural to you - so you can call it "groupthink." It's a shared reality for us. It's not groupthink that the sky is blue. Your profession nominally exists to serve our interests. In fact, it serves to suck our blood - when it isn't filling up our days with worthless bullshit. All genuine innovators, at least in our field, despise your rule with a passion. I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred. > Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen. No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present practices. In other words, the American voter has exactly the same power over the patent industry that the German voter had over Hitler. Ie, at a first approximation, none. > Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one. Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.) There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every other "country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of WIPO's derriere. Alas, ruling the world doesn't mean your turds are made of gold - though I'm sure it's been quite golden for you.

moldbug 15y ago

> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems. Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? > So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you. If the groupthink is right, yes. Groupthink isn't always right. It isn't always wrong. It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either. > I write patents for inventors. In other words, you're a patent lawyer. I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate. "The rockets go up - who knows where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun." > And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever engaged in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll. And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea. > Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind... it would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of software patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would basically be de minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about software patents. Since you're a patent lawyer, you know perfectly well that our patent system does not have the power to distinguish between "inventors" and "trolls." You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely. This would change your life, wouldn't it? And not for the better.

monochromatic 15y ago
> Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? Some women might actually take offense at that, but I'd say no. But throwing Hitler into the analogy really does change its flavor, doesn't it? We're not talking about bulls and cows here. The analogy your position:my position::Satan:Jesus is a little bit more in line with the inflammatory one you actually used above. And in a case like that, I think reading an analogy as a comparison is both inevitable and exactly what you intended. > It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong. > I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate. I've told inventors that I thought a particular application would be a challenge to get allowed. I've told inventors that in light of the prior art, they won't get a patent that's broad enough to be worth anything. And yes, on more than one occasion, I've told an inventor that I didn't believe he could get a patent on his idea. (Just a nitpick here, but I've never told an inventor I could get something patented. Nothing is assured, and sometimes you get an examiner that simply will not allow a case.) > And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea. I certainly wouldn't stick my head in the sand to avoid knowing how they use their patents. And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal. > You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook. Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen. > Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely. Aaaand here's where you go off the deep end. Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one.
- moldbug 15y ago
  > And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal. No. They aren't doing anything illegal. They're doing something evil. Mens rea is the mental state of doing evil. Not everything evil is illegal - for various reasons, some good and some bad. But the mental state is the same. Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy. Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass murder. It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's still evil, like Hitler. > But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong. Anyone is entitled to be right for any reason at all. You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies. Besides, you're missing something here. You make a living sending rockets up. We live where the rockets come down. The existence of rocket impacts is purely conjectural to you - so you can call it "groupthink." It's a shared reality for us. It's not groupthink that the sky is blue. Your profession nominally exists to serve our interests. In fact, it serves to suck our blood - when it isn't filling up our days with worthless bullshit. All genuine innovators, at least in our field, despise your rule with a passion. I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred. > Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen. No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present practices. In other words, the American voter has exactly the same power over the patent industry that the German voter had over Hitler. Ie, at a first approximation, none. > Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one. Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.) There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every other "country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of WIPO's derriere. Alas, ruling the world doesn't mean your turds are made of gold - though I'm sure it's been quite golden for you.