What kind of logic it is? Without US inventors ability to recoup their time and money invested in to developing new solution who is going do that. Chinese? They already have superior technology (HUAWEI, QUALCOM) thank to their patent system.
@@paperbeen 1) reform is not the same as getting rid of 2) using China as a stunning example of adherence to intellectual property laws is not a good idea.
@@owlblocksdavid4955 I think you should learn more about to have valid opinion. World is going ahead and and not looking back. US intellectual property laws freshest reform 2011 AIA result is lower value of US patents. Big Tech is $$$reforming$$$$ patent system to be able control market /competition and infringe on labor of others. Same behavior would put you straight in jail in Germany (for example) in US is just "Business Activity" or " Efficient Infringement" New names for common Thief's
I like how opensource software does it. Believe it or not, opensource stuff doesn't mean it's not profitable or monetizable, or copyrightable, but these licenses are so public; and everything is so flexible; even microsoft is doing a lot of new stuff as opensource; there are no patents, just a basic clusterfuck of readmes and terms and conditions, which somehow, work.
Patents, copyrights, and trademarks should be banned. Companies should be forced to compete. Without competition, you get unrestrained greed which kills capitalism.
and "evil" is just plain wrong. I know a lot of people who work for various parts of the government, from law enforcement to legislation, from the FAA to the Library of Congress, and they're all trying really hard to be good people and do their jobs well, but a) some of them are misguided or not too bright and b) shit is complicated, and c) maybe you're not always right about everything, and you don't understand all the details and reasoning involved
AD - you're correct of course, but one issue that dogs good Government employees and contractors is how difficult it is to be a whistle-blower. I'm not talking about disclosing classified information, I mean those witnesses to fraud, wast and abuse. They find they have choice between quietly putting up with it or being blackballed.
The problem is corporations are not people and those immortal fictions own patents and it is in their interests to limit new ideas that compete with established products and until the ROI on products currently being made has paid off. So little to no creative destruction is happening.
The patent system itself is broken. It is basically impossible for patent offices to evaluate whether a concept is truly novel or simply as straightforward application of the existing body of knowledge. Consequently, patents are largely defensive measures largely undertaken by large enterprises to defend themselves from other large enterprises, with the side benefit of occasionally squashing upstarts. My suggestion: Only offering patents to inventions solving issues that have been previously announced as being claimed as unresolved problems with substantial cash prizes attached. If no one claims the prize within 5 years, then an appropriate solution would be eligible for a patent. Another idea would be cap the number of patents offered each year, with applicants bidding for the available patents. That way, truly valuable ideas would get the monopoly protection, while low valued ideas would just be disclosed.
Better idea. End patents or have a sunset of less than 7 years. Most patents are filed by IBM and Microsoft, and they generally are not vague. So chances that you will end up on the receiving end of a patent that will be upheld by these 2 tech giants is HUGE.
Here is an idea. Make it law that patent automatically expire once it gets more than one degree of separation from the original owner. In theory patents, copyrights and etc already are supposed to expire after a certain period. To not take money away from the creator ( if original creator Seles character to Disney or software engineer makes something that doodle or Microsoft buys) the patent would be informed after first sale. But if it goes to a second sale ( say original creator to new star up which then is acquired by google ...a 2nd degree of separation ) upon this 2nd degree, the patent/ copyright is no longer subject to legal penalties.
I see this as a problem with the requirements of submitting a patent. There need's to be a requirement of making your idea viable, or there needs to be less restrictions for patents that don't make use of their idea. So if you patent a really good idea put never put it in practice it would be okay for someone to sell that idea as long as a small portion would go to the idea creator. So a gradient of ownership dependent on function or value is a possible solution but this is a really complicated topic that needs to be talked about more.
You summed up what is wrong. It IS the job of the Patent Office to nit pick every application and makes sure its legitimate before awarding it. They are not doing their job properly hence idiotic patents and patent trolls.
Having been named by something does not invalidate a patent. No matter how many times "freeze rays" have appeared in science fiction settings, if someone actually built one, he could patent it. I also don't like the idea of fee transfer (unless the suit or the defense is blatantly frivolous.) It will only help big companies who steal the ideas of small inventors.
You should not be able to file a patent without the product period, also it shouldn't be VAGUE! ALSO it should only be filed by the inventor of it, I'm tired of companies buying patent like they were an exclusivity contract
You should only be able to sue if you have an actual product in the marketplace that might be losing sales because of infringement. No product means you have no standing which means you cannot bring suit.
Corrola settled for 0. He stated it on a podcast. The papers said it was an undisclosed amount. They were upset that he was going to fight them to the end.
I truly believe in "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And the only like minded people I can find are usually among the libertarians, where the saying has real life for me. I do agree with some of the things you say, others I think are crazy, but in general, you all seem to be cool with defending that, and I would defend you.
There was a company of natural beauty products that was being sued by Oasis the juice company for having the word oasis in their brand name. Ridiculous.
TELL SOMEONE THAT CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM! PLEASE. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE SUING APPLE AND MANY OTHER CELL PHONE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT A PATENT ON (TURN ON PHONE, CALL, TALLK AND END CALL, CLOSE OR TURN OFF PHONE) CELL PHONES.
IP Europe chief denounces ‘patent troll myth’ The head of a corporate alliance that includes Nokia and Ericsson has urged the EU to ignore the so-called ‘patent troll myth', which he said has “little basis in fact”.In a letter to The Financial Times, published today, January 21, IP Europe executive secretary Francisco Mingorance said that the narrative of abusive litigation by ‘patent trolls’ was a “calculated attempt to create a false rationale for weakening the patent protections of technology innovators in Europe”.
That funny considering a British company, CISCO, has been running the U.S. patent office for years. Australia is not a friend of the U.S. and the two DO NOT have a 'special relationship'.
Patents make sense as an incentive for technical progress only if they approximate the time needed to invent/innovate independently whatever it is they protect. Too short, and trade secrets (NDAs) are a better protection. Too long, and innovation is stifled. e. g. by patent trolls. Also, to be granted a patent, in theory, one must clearly explained the innovation so as to allow others to understand it and improve on it, even before the patent protection lapses. Patent writers are encouraged by the current law to obfuscate the information to both make the innovation harder to replicate and the patent broader than its actual foundation.
This issue is horribly underrated! This is literally why we don't have a capitalist success! Theres supposed to be the genius inventor and then the wave of Microsoft competitors. They produce lower costs of the product or service and provide higher quality.
Why? People spend huge amounts of time and effort making software, but copying it takes just a few seconds. If there were no legal protections, anyone could just steal and distribute software that gets made.
@@cybersmith_videos go up and read a software patent. It has nothing about software/code all together. Just some words and ideas thrown around. If someone patented 'the idea of information presented on screen' . He/she could literally sue ALL tech companies. And yes tech patents ARE that absurd.
Also we need Loser Pays - The British Rule (really worldwide rule except US) - That makes the loser of a lawsuit pay all attorney fees and court costs. We should except cases where people sue the government and lose.
The USPTO (US Patent Office) issues these ridiculous patents since the government receives about $40,000 per patent in application and maintenance fees. When challenged in court, juries find more than 50% of patents invalid.
"Loser pays" is a great way for big companies to bully poor citizens. You could even make the slav- er citizen pay for the company's bribe to the judge.
If the loser pays both bills then it's a boon to lawyers' paychecks since it pays to get the best lawyer and hope the other guy pays. Better is to have a payment from the litigant to the defendant that is not related to the legal costs.
Surprised you didn't address patented technology being ignored until the patent expires by companies? Though I am curious how you can patent something that doesn't exist...
So according to this, people who lose lawsuits should pay for the winners legal fees and you should be able to file a patent lawsuit anywhere in America. Yeah I'm down with that. Anything else though? Instead of trying to be funny, why not supply us with more information? Should we change any other patent laws?
Personal Audio case is not as black and white as the video suggests. I don't agree with the founder's view on the matter, but his opinion is worth a read. personalaudio.net/our-view/
I've enjoyed this channel, but it's disappointing to hear such disinformation. Patents are not granted for who makes them first or who has the idea first, they are granted to the first person who registers a VALID patent. Alexander Reben can pump out as many ideas as he likes, but until he submits the patent with VALID CLAIMS, he is wasting his time. And patent submissions are not cheap. Please stop setting up strawmen to knock down.
Patent trolls aren't as bad as non-troll patent holders. Trolls just want a piece of your revenue but when Apple or Samsung uses a patent it is to kill competition and innovation. These types of patent owners cost society much more than trolls.
Verl Humpherys Who would invent anything with the knowlege that it would just get stolen by several companies immediately after making it? Making stealing ideas an easier and more profitable industry than coming up with them hurts everyone in the long run. Incentivising innovators is the most beneficial to society, because we get the spoils of their success.
Drew Henry Some would but many would be deturred. It would also make a lucrative rip off industry that many potential inventors would partake in rather than making original products.
Adam Corolla has how many patents? Zero? I prefer the movie Flash of Genius where the guy successfully trolled Ford Motor Company. Much better and inspiring true story than this cynical anti intellectual property video. There was nothing about this video that made it seem "reason tv" appreciated patents or all the work inventors put in. Right from the get go it called patents a form of monopoly that inventors get. Very cynical attitude about patents to start off with . Unsurprisingly the video was not very creative. Communists/socialists tend to be anti private property. Just a side note. It was Apple btw that was suing Samsung and it is IBM that is the biggest patent holder. For "trolls" they sure do live under some massive bridges. The term might better be described as hoarders or corporate bullies. If the patent office is approving obvious or useless things that is they are failing on their vetting process.
It's the whole idea of patents that's the problems. The patent trolls aren't "gaming" the system; they're using it as it was intended to be used: to create monopolies and restrict production.
Not true. The original purpose of the patent system was to encourage inventors to publish their inventions, as opposed to keeping them as trade secrets that could potentially be lost.
That isn't true. Our modern patent system has its origins in letters patent that were given in England. The crown would give a monopoly to somebody. This nothing but protectionism and has nothing to do with encouraging innovation. Furthermore, if somebody receives a patent, then they have monopoly. They can legally stop others from producing their patented product. This does tend to restrict production. This is obvious as it stops others from producing the product. Additionally, there have been many studies that have shown that either (1) it isn't clear whether patents help or hurt the economy or (2) patents actually harm the economy. As Stephan Kinsella says, "So it is striking that there seems to be no empirical studies or analyses providing conclusive evidence that an IP system is indeed worth the cost. Every study I have ever seen is either neutral or ambivalent, or ends up condemning part or all of IP systems." www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/
That doesn't contradict what I said, which is that the original intention was to encourage publication of inventions rather than secrecy. I made no claims whatsoever as to the patent system's effectiveness.
That's not what patents are for at all... It's a way so no one can take your idea. Imagine if everytime someone had a good idea a bigger company stole it. There would never be any cool new start-ups, just big companies getting bigger off new ideas they didn't create.
@@NicholasSinard but look at it from a moral perspective. Ideas are yours. Imagine everytime you had a cool new idea a bigger company could steal it. Also, does that also apply to music or artistic works. If not then no one would get paid for their creations and musicians would have no insintive to try.
All patents are frivolous. None of you are smart enough to ever call anything you ever make "innovative" in a legal sense. That's like trying to legally define "tall". The best patent reform is to get rid of all patents.
Another brazen patent thief propagating legend about patent trolls. According to his definition As Inventor who owns a patent I am patent troll and I have audacity to expect that I am going be paid for my work. In US thief is better off than anybody else. Should I learn how to steal too?
Kian Docherty A loser pay system isn't really a regulation. It's a sensible idea. You want to waste my time and take my property abusing the legal system? You better be willing to pay when you lose.
watchdealer11 I was meaning with the "you have to fight the law suit in the defenders state" law. It was weird seeing a libertarian channel praise regulation and go against the laxly regulated south Easern texas thing. Can we agree that sometimes, regulation is better for the economy?
Kian Docherty Limitations on litigation is different than business regulations. I will never support business regulation, and I absolutely will never support social laws that violate the NAP.
Kian Docherty Limitations on litigation is different than business regulations. I will never support business regulation, and I absolutely will never support social laws that violate the NAP.
dondoes969 but also decrease the incentive for innovation to happen because the people behind the idea wont have any monetary incentive to develop it into a full fledged product . Its better for someone to patent something and improve on it steadily with the income they get by monetizing it than have someone not have any patent and just leave the project they started half way because they can't financially afford to continue further with the development.
+Paranolverizer "Its better for someone to patent something and improve on it steadily with the income they get by monetizing it" This has never happened
But it will hurt start-ups. We have to allow small companies with fresh ideas a chance with their intellectual property because yes, it's their property. Ideas can be stolen and it happens all the time, do you have to protect intellectual property theft like it was the theft of anything else.
Or could just get rid of IP laws all together. They're a clear violation of real property rights. This hard drive is mine, you have no moral right to tell me how I am and am not allowed to configure the magnetism of it.
Lechteron You are allowed to configure it any way you choose, as long as you don't eat up market share of the IP patentholder. That being said, some IP protection is necessary to motivate R & D, but it should only apply to companies that will be using/selling the product.
Play it safe and not invest... lol yeah let us keep having expenses in life and have nothing producing returns that will work out.... sure. Also, let us just ignore the Italian Renaissance that had no patent laws after all nothing good came of that....
Real property rights? Property rights are derived from right to one's own labor. You put labor into a copyrighted work or patented invention. So why can't it be property?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Stop fighting over quadrilaterals. Just make me a robot butler already!"
Wow Andrew that's a weird way to pronounce sex robot.
In the mean time, do what my name says.
Everybody's got their turn-ons....
Patents kill more innovation than it stimulates. There needs to be serious reforms.
What kind of logic it is? Without US inventors ability to recoup their time and money invested in to developing new solution who is going do that. Chinese? They already have superior technology (HUAWEI, QUALCOM) thank to their patent system.
@@paperbeen 1) reform is not the same as getting rid of 2) using China as a stunning example of adherence to intellectual property laws is not a good idea.
@@owlblocksdavid4955 I think you should learn more about to have valid opinion. World is going ahead and and not looking back. US intellectual property laws freshest reform 2011 AIA result is lower value of US patents. Big Tech is $$$reforming$$$$ patent system to be able control market /competition and infringe on labor of others. Same behavior would put you straight in jail in Germany (for example) in US is just "Business Activity" or " Efficient Infringement" New names for common Thief's
I like how opensource software does it.
Believe it or not, opensource stuff doesn't mean it's not profitable or monetizable, or copyrightable, but these licenses are so public; and everything is so flexible; even microsoft is doing a lot of new stuff as opensource; there are no patents, just a basic clusterfuck of readmes and terms and conditions, which somehow, work.
Patents, copyrights, and trademarks should be banned.
Companies should be forced to compete.
Without competition, you get unrestrained greed which kills capitalism.
I don't get how patent trolls were ever allowed, they completely defeat the purpose of patents
AndroidDoctorr government is incompetent
"Incompetent"... that's a funny way to spell "evil".
That's generalizing...
The government is sometimes incompetent.
and "evil" is just plain wrong. I know a lot of people who work for various parts of the government, from law enforcement to legislation, from the FAA to the Library of Congress, and they're all trying really hard to be good people and do their jobs well, but a) some of them are misguided or not too bright and b) shit is complicated, and c) maybe you're not always right about everything, and you don't understand all the details and reasoning involved
AD - you're correct of course, but one issue that dogs good Government employees and contractors is how difficult it is to be a whistle-blower. I'm not talking about disclosing classified information, I mean those witnesses to fraud, wast and abuse. They find they have choice between quietly putting up with it or being blackballed.
I didn't think I was going to find this interesting. I was wrong. Very entertaining and informative.
The settlement on the Adam Caolla podcast was for $0. Personal Audio threw in the towel.
The whole patent system is garbage based on false premises....scrap the whole thing and watch innovation and entrepreneurship skyrocket!
Fun fact Commodore one of the most innovative computer companies of the 1980s was killed by a patent troll.
These arent even the worst. Some people own colors.
I remember hearing about the Podcast trolls. I'm glad to hear that Adam stood up to the bullies.
The problem is corporations are not people and those immortal fictions own patents and it is in their interests to limit new ideas that compete with established products and until the ROI on products currently being made has paid off. So little to no creative destruction is happening.
The patent system itself is broken. It is basically impossible for patent offices to evaluate whether a concept is truly novel or simply as straightforward application of the existing body of knowledge. Consequently, patents are largely defensive measures largely undertaken by large enterprises to defend themselves from other large enterprises, with the side benefit of occasionally squashing upstarts. My suggestion: Only offering patents to inventions solving issues that have been previously announced as being claimed as unresolved problems with substantial cash prizes attached. If no one claims the prize within 5 years, then an appropriate solution would be eligible for a patent.
Another idea would be cap the number of patents offered each year, with applicants bidding for the available patents. That way, truly valuable ideas would get the monopoly protection, while low valued ideas would just be disclosed.
These are really well done. Keep 'em coming.
Fee shifting should be standard for almost all lawsuits
I patented the alphabet. It's under my idea of communication based squiggles.
I patented the cure for aids and now I play the waiting game.
They have it now look it up
They just cured the second person (I think?). Look it up.
Sue them!
Sue them!
Sue them!
Im from Iceland. Fee shifting is very common here. Frivalous lawsuits are regularly punished.
I might as well ask for an update; are they still regularly happening?
Better idea. End patents or have a sunset of less than 7 years. Most patents are filed by IBM and Microsoft, and they generally are not vague. So chances that you will end up on the receiving end of a patent that will be upheld by these 2 tech giants is HUGE.
Benjamin Franklin did not believe in patents.
Just copyright your patent.
Good riddance to that desk, now dance for me! DANCE
This video was FANTASTIC!
Here is an idea.
Make it law that patent automatically expire once it gets more than one degree of separation from the original owner.
In theory patents, copyrights and etc already are supposed to expire after a certain period. To not take money away from the creator ( if original creator Seles character to Disney or software engineer makes something that doodle or Microsoft buys) the patent would be informed after first sale.
But if it goes to a second sale ( say original creator to new star up which then is acquired by google ...a 2nd degree of separation ) upon this 2nd degree, the patent/ copyright is no longer subject to legal penalties.
I see this as a problem with the requirements of submitting a patent. There need's to be a requirement of making your idea viable, or there needs to be less restrictions for patents that don't make use of their idea. So if you patent a really good idea put never put it in practice it would be okay for someone to sell that idea as long as a small portion would go to the idea creator. So a gradient of ownership dependent on function or value is a possible solution but this is a really complicated topic that needs to be talked about more.
I miss Andrew Heaton
I ain't dead!
I hope he comes back to us.
Sometimes I still see ghosts of him.
**sadly turns to look for a medium and a pottery wheel**
I remember once in a dream he made a joke about Keynesian economics and India.
I was so happy.
But then I woke up.
**Wanders through graveyard thinking about girls he never kissed and trying to figure out what his unfinished business is.**
You summed up what is wrong. It IS the job of the Patent Office to nit pick every application and makes sure its legitimate before awarding it. They are not doing their job properly hence idiotic patents and patent trolls.
Having been named by something does not invalidate a patent. No matter how many times "freeze rays" have appeared in science fiction settings, if someone actually built one, he could patent it.
I also don't like the idea of fee transfer (unless the suit or the defense is blatantly frivolous.) It will only help big companies who steal the ideas of small inventors.
You should not be able to file a patent without the product period, also it shouldn't be VAGUE! ALSO it should only be filed by the inventor of it, I'm tired of companies buying patent like they were an exclusivity contract
Man this id gold. You are gold.
You should only be able to sue if you have an actual product in the marketplace that might be losing sales because of infringement.
No product means you have no standing which means you cannot bring suit.
Corrola settled for 0. He stated it on a podcast. The papers said it was an undisclosed amount. They were upset that he was going to fight them to the end.
I truly believe in "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And the only like minded people I can find are usually among the libertarians, where the saying has real life for me. I do agree with some of the things you say, others I think are crazy, but in general, you all seem to be cool with defending that, and I would defend you.
Just got back from visiting east Texas, can confirm is terrible.
More people need to know about this
There was a company of natural beauty products that was being sued by Oasis the juice company for having the word oasis in their brand name. Ridiculous.
Love this video !
Is this a RUclips kids channel lmao based
I still have pogs. And I would watch his hilarious pogcast. 😆
Great clip!! Informative & entertaining!! You must've broken a huge patent there!!! 😱🎯👍👽
Intellectual property makes my libertarian brain very confused.
Why? It's derived from labor, like other property.
@@owlblocksdavid4955 Ideas are not labor
You should've started the Pogcast when you had the chance.
TELL SOMEONE THAT CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM! PLEASE. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE SUING APPLE AND MANY OTHER CELL PHONE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT A PATENT ON (TURN ON PHONE, CALL, TALLK AND END CALL, CLOSE OR TURN OFF PHONE) CELL PHONES.
Doesn't head wear also cover partial baldness?
I'm pretty sure someone copyrighted the act of picking up a stick and throwing it.
IP Europe chief denounces
‘patent troll myth’
The head of a corporate alliance that includes Nokia and Ericsson has urged the EU to ignore the so-called ‘patent troll myth', which he said has “little basis in fact”.In a letter to The Financial Times, published today, January 21, IP Europe executive secretary Francisco Mingorance said that the narrative of abusive litigation by ‘patent trolls’ was a “calculated attempt to create a false rationale for weakening the patent protections of technology innovators in Europe”.
That funny considering a British company, CISCO, has been running the U.S. patent office for years. Australia is not a friend of the U.S. and the two DO NOT have a 'special relationship'.
Patents don't encourage innovation. Ever.
Patents make sense as an incentive for technical progress only if they approximate the time needed to invent/innovate independently whatever it is they protect. Too short, and trade secrets (NDAs) are a better protection. Too long, and innovation is stifled. e. g. by patent trolls.
Also, to be granted a patent, in theory, one must clearly explained the innovation so as to allow others to understand it and improve on it, even before the patent protection lapses. Patent writers are encouraged by the current law to obfuscate the information to both make the innovation harder to replicate and the patent broader than its actual foundation.
love the show!!
This issue is horribly underrated! This is literally why we don't have a capitalist success! Theres supposed to be the genius inventor and then the wave of Microsoft competitors. They produce lower costs of the product or service and provide higher quality.
Possible Deadpool Quote:'' Don't mess with me internet, I need to patent making out with my girlfriend/wife/maybe girlfriend again.''
Is there a patent on patent trolling?
Adams settlement was zero dollars
Heaton's just mad that he tried to patent toast and got a lawsuit.
Good job
A patent shouldn't bee valid unless the holder can show that they are activity attempting to produce or sell the product.
We also need to get rid of software patents all together.
Why? People spend huge amounts of time and effort making software, but copying it takes just a few seconds.
If there were no legal protections, anyone could just steal and distribute software that gets made.
@@cybersmith_videos go up and read a software patent. It has nothing about software/code all together. Just some words and ideas thrown around.
If someone patented 'the idea of information presented on screen' . He/she could literally sue ALL tech companies.
And yes tech patents ARE that absurd.
I'm pretty sure software is mostly protected by copyright. Which makes more sense than patents.
Through Patents, the Government establishes monopolies. Therefore, we should shift to compulsory (or automatic) licensing of all patents.
Also we need Loser Pays - The British Rule (really worldwide rule except US) - That makes the loser of a lawsuit pay all attorney fees and court costs. We should except cases where people sue the government and lose.
The USPTO (US Patent Office) issues these ridiculous patents since the government receives about $40,000 per patent in application and maintenance fees. When challenged in court, juries find more than 50% of patents invalid.
vandertuber good point
"Loser pays" is a great way for big companies to bully poor citizens. You could even make the slav- er citizen pay for the company's bribe to the judge.
@PvblivsAelivs Bingo!
We should just ban copyrights, patents, and trademarks from existence. Make companies compete instead.
If the loser pays both bills then it's a boon to lawyers' paychecks since it pays to get the best lawyer and hope the other guy pays. Better is to have a payment from the litigant to the defendant that is not related to the legal costs.
Surprised you didn't address patented technology being ignored until the patent expires by companies? Though I am curious how you can patent something that doesn't exist...
Why don't these guys have more views?
I would totally subscribe to Pogcast.
The lawyers always win.
Absolutely poggers 3:05
If you think troll's fear commitment, you clearly haven't hung around 4chan much lately.
"that's a good Valentine's day present". Andrew Heaton is a furry.
So according to this, people who lose lawsuits should pay for the winners legal fees and you should be able to file a patent lawsuit anywhere in America. Yeah I'm down with that. Anything else though? Instead of trying to be funny, why not supply us with more information? Should we change any other patent laws?
Did the Italian Renasaunce have patents? No so stop the insanity and waste of human potential.
there is a pogcast now
Every single video I've seen exposing patent trolls, it's made to be comedy-like. Pathetic, as it's a very serious matter.
Reason was already been patented when this channel was made.
Wait, what's that? Bad jokes continuing jokes from videos have already been patented?
But then the creator will fear to patent anything because he might go broke. Just like everybody fears making lawsuits
This dude is funny af
Your paper is extremely fragile.
Personal Audio case is not as black and white as the video suggests.
I don't agree with the founder's view on the matter, but his opinion is worth a read.
personalaudio.net/our-view/
I've enjoyed this channel, but it's disappointing to hear such disinformation.
Patents are not granted for who makes them first or who has the idea first, they are granted to the first person who registers a VALID patent. Alexander Reben can pump out as many ideas as he likes, but until he submits the patent with VALID CLAIMS, he is wasting his time. And patent submissions are not cheap. Please stop setting up strawmen to knock down.
Just get rid of intellectual property. First movers advantage should be enough to encourage people to invent things.
Patent trolls aren't as bad as non-troll patent holders. Trolls just want a piece of your revenue but when Apple or Samsung uses a patent it is to kill competition and innovation. These types of patent owners cost society much more than trolls.
Verl Humpherys Who would invent anything with the knowlege that it would just get stolen by several companies immediately after making it? Making stealing ideas an easier and more profitable industry than coming up with them hurts everyone in the long run. Incentivising innovators is the most beneficial to society, because we get the spoils of their success.
To say people wouldn't invent without patents is nothing but FUD. See Terence Kealey and Stephan Kinsella.
Drew Henry Some would but many would be deturred. It would also make a lucrative rip off industry that many potential inventors would partake in rather than making original products.
Intel started that
Verl Humpherys Same difference.
Patent trolls aren't gaming the system, they're using it as intended, it is bound to be "abused" since it's a government grant of monopoly.
Other than socialism/communism... monopolies are the biggest threat to capitalism.
What's a pog?
Milk bottles used to have paper caps the companies put characters and such on them making them collectible like basball cards and pokenmon cards.
PogChamp
POG
sub par comedy
still better then samantha bee and Trevor noah
and that's not a political statement btw
Painting with paint made from dogshit and watching it dry is more entertaining than Bee and Trevor.
I think the point of Andrew Heaton is that it's subpar comedy. That makes it better somehow.
Pawgcast..
Pogcast
patents are bullshit, its just a way to guarantee monopolies. Stop the bullshit.
Adam Corolla has how many patents? Zero?
I prefer the movie Flash of Genius where the guy successfully trolled Ford Motor Company. Much better and inspiring true story than this cynical anti intellectual property video.
There was nothing about this video that made it seem "reason tv" appreciated patents or all the work inventors put in. Right from the get go it called patents a form of monopoly that inventors get. Very cynical attitude about patents to start off with .
Unsurprisingly the video was not very creative. Communists/socialists tend to be anti private property. Just a side note.
It was Apple btw that was suing Samsung and it is IBM that is the biggest patent holder. For "trolls" they sure do live under some massive bridges. The term might better be described as hoarders or corporate bullies.
If the patent office is approving obvious or useless things that is they are failing on their vetting process.
I'm from east Texas lol
I patented GoRemy a long time ago. He needs to pay up.
Calvin Smith lol
It's the whole idea of patents that's the problems. The patent trolls aren't "gaming" the system; they're using it as it was intended to be used: to create monopolies and restrict production.
Not true. The original purpose of the patent system was to encourage inventors to publish their inventions, as opposed to keeping them as trade secrets that could potentially be lost.
That isn't true. Our modern patent system has its origins in letters patent that were given in England. The crown would give a monopoly to somebody. This nothing but protectionism and has nothing to do with encouraging innovation.
Furthermore, if somebody receives a patent, then they have monopoly. They can legally stop others from producing their patented product. This does tend to restrict production. This is obvious as it stops others from producing the product.
Additionally, there have been many studies that have shown that either (1) it isn't clear whether patents help or hurt the economy or (2) patents actually harm the economy.
As Stephan Kinsella says, "So it is striking that there seems to be no empirical studies or analyses providing conclusive evidence that an IP system is indeed worth the cost. Every study I have ever seen is either neutral or ambivalent, or ends up condemning part or all of IP systems."
www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/
That doesn't contradict what I said, which is that the original intention was to encourage publication of inventions rather than secrecy. I made no claims whatsoever as to the patent system's effectiveness.
That's not what patents are for at all... It's a way so no one can take your idea. Imagine if everytime someone had a good idea a bigger company stole it. There would never be any cool new start-ups, just big companies getting bigger off new ideas they didn't create.
@@NicholasSinard but look at it from a moral perspective. Ideas are yours. Imagine everytime you had a cool new idea a bigger company could steal it. Also, does that also apply to music or artistic works. If not then no one would get paid for their creations and musicians would have no insintive to try.
Death. I bet they fear death.
Or we could just get rid of patents and the let the free market work itself out.
All patents are frivolous. None of you are smart enough to ever call anything you ever make "innovative" in a legal sense. That's like trying to legally define "tall". The best patent reform is to get rid of all patents.
Another brazen patent thief propagating legend about patent trolls. According to his definition As Inventor who owns a patent I am patent troll and I have audacity to expect that I am going be paid for my work. In US thief is better off than anybody else. Should I learn how to steal too?
Patent Princess Poppy
Sooo what you are telling me is that government regulation helped beat patten trolls?
Kian Docherty A loser pay system isn't really a regulation. It's a sensible idea. You want to waste my time and take my property abusing the legal system? You better be willing to pay when you lose.
watchdealer11 I was meaning with the "you have to fight the law suit in the defenders state" law. It was weird seeing a libertarian channel praise regulation and go against the laxly regulated south Easern texas thing. Can we agree that sometimes, regulation is better for the economy?
Kian Docherty Limitations on litigation is different than business regulations. I will never support business regulation, and I absolutely will never support social laws that violate the NAP.
Kian Docherty Limitations on litigation is different than business regulations. I will never support business regulation, and I absolutely will never support social laws that violate the NAP.
Patents are regulations
Just get rid of patents
Something weird about this guys face I can't figure out 🤔
😶
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get rid of patents, and stop protecting IP. It will increase innovation and inventions, and it will decrease prices for consumers.
dondoes969 but also decrease the incentive for innovation to happen because the people behind the idea wont have any monetary incentive to develop it into a full fledged product . Its better for someone to patent something and improve on it steadily with the income they get by monetizing it than have someone not have any patent and just leave the project they started half way because they can't financially afford to continue further with the development.
+Paranolverizer
"Its better for someone to patent something and improve on it steadily with the income they get by monetizing it"
This has never happened
acex222 i don't have specific examples right now but ur wrong . It has happened many times.
Pharmaceuticals need a patent period or no one would fund there development.
I say keep patents as they are and with limited terms of 15 years.
But it will hurt start-ups. We have to allow small companies with fresh ideas a chance with their intellectual property because yes, it's their property. Ideas can be stolen and it happens all the time, do you have to protect intellectual property theft like it was the theft of anything else.
They love America but that's y your version is made in China
Or could just get rid of IP laws all together. They're a clear violation of real property rights. This hard drive is mine, you have no moral right to tell me how I am and am not allowed to configure the magnetism of it.
Lechteron You are allowed to configure it any way you choose, as long as you don't eat up market share of the IP patentholder. That being said, some IP protection is necessary to motivate R & D, but it should only apply to companies that will be using/selling the product.
Play it safe and not invest... lol yeah let us keep having expenses in life and have nothing producing returns that will work out.... sure. Also, let us just ignore the Italian Renaissance that had no patent laws after all nothing good came of that....
This is going on Already with AIA act of 2011. I myself plan to file in EU and in China since US patents are worthless
Real property rights? Property rights are derived from right to one's own labor. You put labor into a copyrighted work or patented invention. So why can't it be property?
Cringey, but informative.