Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

TechDirt on the Coalition for Patent Fairness: facts not a strong suit

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

In a comment on TechDirt to a post Patent Reform Bill Released: More Of The Same , Mike Masnick wrote in response to certain statements of Ron Riley:

--[Riley] There is nothing good in the bill which was written by and for the Coalition for Patent Piracy & Fairness and then high-jacked by the Coalition for 21st century Patent Deform & HARMonization.--

Nothing good? Really? That seems a bit extreme.

--[Riley]It is interesting that Mike Masnick's position on the bill is similar to that of the Coalition for Patent Piracy and Fairness and that may of their members just happen to have ads on TechDIRT.--

[Masnick] It would be interesting if that were true, but it's not. The Coalition that you've misnamed, and which I've never spoken to and have no relationship whatsoever with, has come out strongly in favor of the bill, whereas I don't think it's particularly useful and think that the bad probably outweighs the good. But facts are not your strong suit.

--It seems reasonable that we should implement comparable measures which Mike Masnick calls for with his business. We need an open ended mechanism to challenge ownership of his assets.--

Again, we have discussed this, so I'm confused by your insistence on this. This is already the case. All of my content is public domain. Please do with as you would like.

All of his work product should be published so that others can examine it and he should then have to fight anyone who decides to take it, endlessly.

Everything is published here and you are, indeed, free to do with it what you want. No "fighting" necessary. Have at it.

Maybe after experiencing this Mike Masnick would finally understand that patents are property and it is unjust to take others tangible or intangible property.

Patents are a monopoly provided by the gov't for a single purpose: to promote the progress. I'm all for them if you could prove they did that. I have asked you in the past many times over to present your evidence and instead you have come back with insults directed at me (and my parents) but no evidence.

Now why would that be?

As for whether or not it is "unjust," I have already said that my content is public domain. Nothing unjust at all about using it however you want. Again, we have discussed this at length. Your decision to ignore the facts is slightly troubling, Ronald. I mean, you must realize that I will repeat the facts again, and anyone reading your comments will know you are a blatant liar. Why would you do that?

Of Masnick's text -- The Coalition that you've misnamed, and which I've never spoken to and have no relationship whatsoever with, has come out strongly in favor of the bill, whereas I don't think it's particularly useful and think that the bad probably outweighs the good. But facts are not your strong suit. -- the Coalition for Patent Fairness walked away from S.515 when they could not get an appropriate damages provision in it, and they oppose the currently-amended form of S.515.

See for example:
"Coalition for Patent Fairness" whacks new patent reform proposals

Elsewhere in the land of TechDirt:

A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites

Murdoch's NY Post Continues To Source Articles From Bloggers With No Credit [ultimately going back to a blog post about Chuck E. Cheese: the only one on the island of Manhattan is at 124th and St. Nick.]

Full post as published by IPBiz on March 08, 2010 (boomark / email).