5 ms·

> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems. Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this

by 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.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    > Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy. Simply not true. The work I do helps independent inventors protect themselves, and it helps startups get funding... believe me, I have no qualms about what I do. It is a net positive for the economy and for people who create things. > 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. There you go again. I'm done responding to this nonsense though. > You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies. First of all, people who don't like the patent system are not my enemies. They simply hold different beliefs than I do. And second, all I'm asking is that people educate themselves to a very minor level before making asses of themselves. > I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred. I suspect not many people hold your extreme beliefs about imprisonment. Disbarment... who knows. If one has gotten the short end of the stick in a patent dispute, I guess it could make him dislike patent attorneys. > 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. There's simply no reason to believe this. If Congress made a clear law prohibiting software patents, and it was a well-drafted law, then it would be followed. > Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.) Nor should they. U.S. patents have no force outside the U.S. Chinese patents, however... > 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. You know WIPO isn't a U.S. organization, right? It's part of the U.N. It's in Geneva. > I wanted to highlight this truly remarkable response, which displays the complete prostitution of the patent industry. Imsgine a literary agent saying: "on more than one occasion, I've told an author he couldn't get his book published." So we've gone from you being "quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your 'inventors'" . . . to "OK, but you don't say it often enough! But there are three things to note here: 1. Most of the clients who come in my door legitimately have come up with something that is, as far as I know, novel. But hey, I'm not an expert in every field, and I don't always do a patent search (it's not a requirement, and clients often don't want to spend the money). 2. It opens me up to a malpractice suit to tell someone "you cannot get a patent on that." Because what if I'm wrong? There's a lot of uncertainty around this question, so this is a phrase reserved for cases where I'm pretty damn sure. 3. You don't know how many clients I've served, or what percentage of them I've turned away. Hell, I dunno either. But I call them like I see them. I have a duty to my clients not to waste their money on a patent I know will never issue. In the cases where I'm sure enough to risk the malpractice claim, I tell them not to bother. I'm not sure what more I could do. Just so you know, I've enjoyed our discussion today. With the exception of your Hitler comments, you've been pretty reasonable, and I try listen to conflicting, but reasonable, opinions with an open mind. I ask that you do the same. I'm not some demon, and I'm not ashamed of anything I do.

by moldbug 15y ago

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.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  > Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy. Simply not true. The work I do helps independent inventors protect themselves, and it helps startups get funding... believe me, I have no qualms about what I do. It is a net positive for the economy and for people who create things. > 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. There you go again. I'm done responding to this nonsense though. > You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies. First of all, people who don't like the patent system are not my enemies. They simply hold different beliefs than I do. And second, all I'm asking is that people educate themselves to a very minor level before making asses of themselves. > I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred. I suspect not many people hold your extreme beliefs about imprisonment. Disbarment... who knows. If one has gotten the short end of the stick in a patent dispute, I guess it could make him dislike patent attorneys. > 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. There's simply no reason to believe this. If Congress made a clear law prohibiting software patents, and it was a well-drafted law, then it would be followed. > Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.) Nor should they. U.S. patents have no force outside the U.S. Chinese patents, however... > 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. You know WIPO isn't a U.S. organization, right? It's part of the U.N. It's in Geneva. > I wanted to highlight this truly remarkable response, which displays the complete prostitution of the patent industry. Imsgine a literary agent saying: "on more than one occasion, I've told an author he couldn't get his book published." So we've gone from you being "quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your 'inventors'" . . . to "OK, but you don't say it often enough! But there are three things to note here: 1. Most of the clients who come in my door legitimately have come up with something that is, as far as I know, novel. But hey, I'm not an expert in every field, and I don't always do a patent search (it's not a requirement, and clients often don't want to spend the money). 2. It opens me up to a malpractice suit to tell someone "you cannot get a patent on that." Because what if I'm wrong? There's a lot of uncertainty around this question, so this is a phrase reserved for cases where I'm pretty damn sure. 3. You don't know how many clients I've served, or what percentage of them I've turned away. Hell, I dunno either. But I call them like I see them. I have a duty to my clients not to waste their money on a patent I know will never issue. In the cases where I'm sure enough to risk the malpractice claim, I tell them not to bother. I'm not sure what more I could do. Just so you know, I've enjoyed our discussion today. With the exception of your Hitler comments, you've been pretty reasonable, and I try listen to conflicting, but reasonable, opinions with an open mind. I ask that you do the same. I'm not some demon, and I'm not ashamed of anything I do.