Benjamin and Rai argue large tech firms require “freedom from patent restrictions” and raise the troll banner. Why is it tech firms should be permitted free use of others properties yet when someone uses their products without paying they cry effusively? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I propose a compromise. Let all the large tech firms steal at will from all the small entities they wish…and let the public illegally copy all the large tech software and appropriate all their hardware they wish without regard to copyrights and patents. Is everyone happy now?

All this talk about “patent trolls” is pure hype. If you will look at the 1898 Rude et al. v. Westcott et al. SCOTUS case [130 US 152, 9 S Ct 463, 32 L Ed 888] you will see that at least since 1874 inventors have been selling and partnering with other parties to enforce their patents. Without doing so, few inventors can afford to enforce their patents, meaning larger competitors can easily beat them out of the market they created and run them into bankruptcy. Therefore, all this present day discussion of “trolls” is a hoax whose only intent is deny inventors any profit from their creations. Simply put, its intent is to legalize theft.

These inventor antagonists rail against firms who license patents they do not themselves commercialize, yet many of the large firms who are most critical of the practice do it themselves. Out licensing is now an important profit center of most every firm. Often, as a result they end up licensing out patents covering technologies they themselves do not use as they are not consistent with their corporate plan. Rather hypocritical isn’t it?

Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your patent and we’re not going to pay.

And by the way, according to Ms. Rai’s bio it does not appear she has any working knowledge of the patent system. She is not a patent practitioner -attorney or agent. She has never filed or prosecuted a patent application, nor has she ever litigated or licensed a patent. Mr. Benjamin according to his bio has even less knowledge and experience of the US patent system. If I am mistaken, please correct me. Otherwise, what then in heavens name makes them competent to comment on the patent system? We might as well have them redesign and build New York’s twin towers!

I earlier noticed that one professor who frequently writes similar slanted pieces in favor of patent “deform” received funding from some of the leading patent deform advocates. One wonders if these two are similarly funded.

Sincerely,
Stephen Wren
actuary/inventor
StL, MO

Your central point, that future interests are not represented in the innovation debate, is exactly correct. It is also only obvious after it has been pointed out. No one sees the empty chair at the table.

The bigger issue is that there may be no good way to solve the problem of the empty seat. You suggest that the America Competes Act will fill the empty seat, but it is not obvious that it fills it with the right body, and it is not obvious that filling the chair is the right way to obtain equity between future industry and incumbent interests. For instance, the Act assumes that government at all levels should play a role in ensuring competitiveness in the future. This assumption is, itself, a concession to incumbent interests that may not represent the best interests of future industry.

As you point out, federal efforts to ensure innovation have not necessarily benefitted the telecommunications industry. Indeed, federal involvement has, almost without exception, retarded progress. Congress inevitably balances speculative visions of what sort of innovations the future will, or should, hold. The consequent decisionmaking leads to a butterfly effect that is often harmful to at least some interests (that may or may not be represented at the table). Perhaps what is best for future industry is for Congress to take its finger off the scale altogether, and leave the game of “innovation policy”. Perhaps the table will provide the best environment for innovation if _all_ of the seats are empty.

More broadly, the old way of policy-making — where the future doesn’t have a seat at the table — has to change if the pace of social progress is to be maintained and accelerated. How do we do that?