4 ms·

It's more simple than that. Does IV produce anything? If they don't have a product or a revenue stream other than suing companies, then they are parasite to th

by jamra 12y ago

It's more simple than that. Does IV produce anything? If they don't have a product or a revenue stream other than suing companies, then they are parasite to the economy.

seanflyon 12y ago
That is a simplistic argument. What is the difference between a large company with several labs producing 'innovation' and a large company funding several labs to produce 'innovation'?
- jamra 12y ago
  Those examples have nothing to do with my argument. Both of your examples neglect the crux of my statement. Paying for patents is not the same as funding innovation. Funding innovation may involve paying for patents. What I stated is that if your company makes its only revenue by the litigation involved with the patents it purchases, it is a parasite. Why? Because it does not produce any goods or services to keep the economy moving. Edit:typo and grammar
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Of course IV does not only make revenue by litigation, they also make revenue by licensing patents without litigation. If the patent system were not broken this would be a perfectly reasonable business model, funding new inventions and selling the rights to produce them (which of course would require litigation if people produced those inventions without paying). For your argument to be valid you must establish that not only is the current patent system broken, but that it would be fundamentally impossible to have a non-broken patent system.
SilasX 12y ago
There's also the possibility [1] that their lawsuits prevent companies from free-riding off the innovative ideas by using them without licensing them, thereby increasing the return to innovation. Though obviously if the typical such lawsuit is over obvious ideas or ones independently discovered by the defendants, that would not apply. [1] not claiming this is the actual case with IV, but it's important to be aware of this mechanism

by jamra 12y ago

It's more simple than that. Does IV produce anything? If they don't have a product or a revenue stream other than suing companies, then they are parasite to the economy.

seanflyon 12y ago

That is a simplistic argument. What is the difference between a large company with several labs producing 'innovation' and a large company funding several labs to produce 'innovation'?

jamra 12y ago
Those examples have nothing to do with my argument. Both of your examples neglect the crux of my statement. Paying for patents is not the same as funding innovation. Funding innovation may involve paying for patents. What I stated is that if your company makes its only revenue by the litigation involved with the patents it purchases, it is a parasite. Why? Because it does not produce any goods or services to keep the economy moving. Edit:typo and grammar
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Of course IV does not only make revenue by litigation, they also make revenue by licensing patents without litigation. If the patent system were not broken this would be a perfectly reasonable business model, funding new inventions and selling the rights to produce them (which of course would require litigation if people produced those inventions without paying). For your argument to be valid you must establish that not only is the current patent system broken, but that it would be fundamentally impossible to have a non-broken patent system.

SilasX 12y ago

There's also the possibility [1] that their lawsuits prevent companies from free-riding off the innovative ideas by using them without licensing them, thereby increasing the return to innovation. Though obviously if the typical such lawsuit is over obvious ideas or ones independently discovered by the defendants, that would not apply. [1] not claiming this is the actual case with IV, but it's important to be aware of this mechanism