3 ms·

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 innova

by 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.