Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pltodms who wrote (32110)	11/19/2009 8:21:51 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Hi pltodms - Thanks for your response; it provoked some thought. You're right of course, to say that the future is unpredictable. "... I will take the optimistic path that we will weather the imbalance we are seeing in our political/economic sphere, today, and come out of this with minimum pain and be much better off." I'm less optimistic for a reason that exists in present-day (not future) realities; that's the overriding weight of corporate agendas in determining legislative decisions, locally and globally. I could provide links, but I think most are aware of the phenomenon: it's pervasive. We've discussed it relation to telecomms, finance and financial reform, IP, and now, invention. The US health care debate provides a good example of how the dynamics play out. There is only one agency that has been uncompromising in its assertion of inventors' rights: the courts. The strength of that assertion can only be validated by the law, and corporate interests are working diligently with legislators to weaken the laws. While it's true that courts provide final recourse, the barriers to entry are high: millions of dollars, and up to a decade in time. If laws are weakened and steep barriers retained it will be a double whammy. So corporations rob the inventors, and fight them in court. In parallel, they mount expensive lobbying campaigns, and make political contributions that far exceed the weight of public-interest arguments in legislative assemblies. IP companies such as Intellectual Ventures and peers offer some hope, in the sense that they have the resources to represent inventors. However they add another cost, which ultimately comes out of the inventor's pocket. If such companies become sufficiently powerful and ruthless, they'll become IP arbitrageurs, possibly to the disadvantage of inventors and the public interest alike. Inventor's returns could be protected by strengthening and clarifying IP law; that's the simple, direct solution, but it seems unlikely. Instead, we see the dismaying irony of corporations who simultaneously breach the law and demand that it be upheld, according to their advantage and profit. None of this is said in dispute. Rather, the remarks are an explanation for why I'm less optimistic than you. Regards, Jim