YESTERDAY we wrote about how law firms had retreated to buzzwords by which to describe software patents. They're not being honest to the public or even to their clients. Why pay for bad advice? All they care about is how much they can bill, even for worthless products/services (which they know to be worthless). Over the past week we caught some more examples worth mentioning.
"...it's widely known that patents, for example, often stand in the way of geniuses. They limit their scope of exploration."The latest patent propaganda from Forbes, which has become like a think tank of litigators, is titled "Feeding the Fire Of Genius: Intellectual Property And America's High-Tech Future" and it makes the false assumption/assertion that for "genius" one needs Intellectual [sic] Property [sic]; it's widely known that patents, for example, often stand in the way of geniuses. They limit their scope of exploration.
A Conservatives' outfit, Daily Caller, would just publish anything provided that someone calling himself or herself "Conservative" would be happy. Even if that's totally untrue, e.g. a case of self interest. Consider "OPINION: Make Patents Great Again" by James Edwards, "Executive director of Conservatives for Property [sic] Rights [sic]" (patents are neither). It's like all those lies Watchtroll habitually tells about the USPTO, mislabeling low-quality patents as "strong". When they say "great" they mean the opposite. They mean rubbish quality of patents! There's also the dying STRONGER Patents Act.
"...if more people properly grasped or really understood how patents work, public consent for them would erode. Alternatively, patent scope would be significantly narrowed."Some of the above is just lobbying. There's also marketing by David J. Dykeman, Greenberg Traurig and Patrick West, Mirus Capital Advisors. It's titled "How strong patent portfolios attract strategic investments and deals" and what they mean by "strong" here is plenty of them rather than actual quality and legitimacy; it's the stockpiling mentality, building a fence of dubious monopoly claims.
How about Intellectual [sic] Property [sic] Right [sic] (none of the above) in the Indian sphere (Faculty of Juridical Sciences Rama University, Kanpur)? We sadly keep seeing such words being thrown in tandem. As we explained in the distant past, the patent microcosm deliberately mischaracterises patents. Why? Because if more people properly grasped or really understood how patents work, public consent for them would erode. Alternatively, patent scope would be significantly narrowed. ⬆