The Economist ran an editorial last week that promoted innovation and jobs by fixing the patent review backlog with more money link here.

In response, David and I submitted the following letter to the editor:

"The assumption of your editorial (Patently Absurd, May 5) that patents foster innovation is wrong. All the constantly growing evidence shows that patents hurt rather than help innovation. To be sure, in the US patents are required by law to be original, useful, and not obvious. When hundreds of thousands are being issued each year, that beggars credibility. Instead, the patent system fosters endless efforts to hijack the profits of successful innovators, generates endless time consuming costly litigation and worse, leads to monopolization with the concomitant expensive products - and indeed discourages real innovators.

"This isn't merely a matter of theory, nor yet one of empirical studies - although both are in plentiful supply: you might take a look at the many references in Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. But more to the point: why don't you talk to engineers and venture capitalists - or even patent examiners? Or at least read the comments they left on your website? You will find that they too view patents as time-wasting defensive operations that provide little protection to real innovators and instead serve merely to protect entrenched monopolists and encourage patent trolls. You are right that the present patent system is broken, but your proposed cures will only make matters worse."

This site has become an exercise in futility.

90% of the "posts" are spam. Recently, 95% or more have been spam.

Some of the posts do not permit comments.

I almost long for the days when None of Your Beeswax was citing his mantras in response to comments people made. At least the mantras were humorous.

Alonniemouse wrote:

I almost long for the days when None of Your Beeswax was [implied insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

And does anyone want to tell me why the site was explicitly refusing http connections recently? It wasn't down (which would have caused a timeout error); the server was powered up and running its operating system and TCP stack and physically connected to the Internet but claimed to not actually be a www server when queried on port 80. Of course we both know it is a www server, so this is, you must admit, highly irregular. Why would it be configured to pretend not to be a web server for a day or two?

What do you know, None of Your Beeswax still has his standard mantras ready to be cut and pasted!!! Nice to see that some things do not change.

Alonniemouse wrote:

What do you know, None of Your Beeswax still has his [suspected implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Beeswax:

If you read something into someone's comments, you inferred the remarks. Nothing was implied by my remarks.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

[calls me a liar]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Ring a bell and the dog barks. rofl

Alonniemouse writes:

Ring a bell and the dog barks.

What does your dog barking when you have visitors have to do with monopolies, Holder? That behavior is normal in the domesticated canine, Holder.

[suspected implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Actually, if you do some research, you will find evidence for the jobs=patents argument. It is well known, and widely accepted as fact, that small businesses provide the bulk of innovation AND are the main sources of new jobs in America. While it's true that receiving a patent on an innovation is no guarantee of receiving VC funds that can help launch a fledgling startup company, it's also true that many VCs will not fund an invention that is not at least patent-pending, because they are in business to make money and want to know their potential investment is protected. Therefore, a startup with IP protection on its innovation(s) is more likely to get funded, and consequently more likely to survive as a successful business and hire employees.

Alonniemouse wrote:

[the usual pro-patent BS]

No. Wrong.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/0120263775.shtml