Imagine fires back against BigBand’s lawsuit — So BigBand sues Imagine for patent infringement for video-processing and bandwidth-management techniques–before Imagine’s initial product and technology have even been commercially deployed. As Imagine notes, BigBand’s lawsuit is filed too early to allow BigBand to “properly know or understand the details of Imagine’s yet-to-be released technology to form the basis for a lawsuit.” So why did they do it? Imagine’s guess?–
“The only conclusion we can reach is that they initiated this suit to upset Imagine’s financings and slow down introduction of Imagine’s superior technology. In fact, when we heard rumblings that a lawsuit might be filed, we initiated CEO-to-CEO discussions and invited BigBand’s CTO to our lab facility to demonstrate our dramatically different and non-infringing technology. They refused our invitation and sued us anyway.”
BigBand’s response? To call its victim’s comments “inflammatory” and to suggest that BigBand might sue them for making these comments too. Ah, good ole’ capitalism-in-the-courtroom. The cornucopia of innovation spawned by the patent system can be seen clearly in action here.
{ 15 comments }
Litigation regarding physical property rights can also get expen…
nevermind, I thought you were advancing a serious argument.
Nothing wrong with releasing information, Person. And if you can show me how there is any innovation being advanced by this system, please feel free–if you have any other weapons in your silas, that is.
Typo–silas ==> silos.
Still relying on that misrepresentation of Kinsella’s argument, Person? Or were you planning on bringing something relevant to the table?
Stephan_Kinsella, any time anyone tries to debate that exact point with you when you bring it up — whether patents promote innovation or not — your response is that it’s irrelevant since that’s socialist utilitarian logic. So pardon me if I can’t take you seriously when you claim you want to debate the point. Look at this exchange:
you: I never said that [unauthorized copying] was “fine”; and who knows what institutions would arise to thwart this, much like software publsihers now have a variety of ways to capture rents from sale of software in a piracy-laden world.
me:I know that you (in your non-utilitaritan philosophy) really couldn’t care less if the repeal of IP laws would result in no for profit software ever being written and marketed. However, your statement here is misleading at best. The ways that software publishers capture rents even despite piracy are all due to the over-arching enforcement of IP laws, so the existence of profits-despite-piracy does not help you establish the possibility or viability of marketing software in an IP-less world.
you: This is not relevant here, but I don’t agree; after all, books and scientific research has been done through the centuries without a monopoly available. You could argue there might be more innovation if there are monopolies but I fail to see how you can argue there would be none.
So, there you have it:
1) you meekly assert some way to profit despite lack of IP enforcement,
2) I point out how this isn’t a valid example since it relies on IP enforcement
3) you say that’s “not relevant here”
4) as a bonus, you falsely attribute the position “there would be no innovation without IP” to me, and beat up that strawman like no one’s business!
Now can you see why I don’t take you seriously when you start trying to argue about consequences from changes in IP law?
Oh, but that’s okay — because after all, since I post under a pseudonym, that must mean your arguments aren’t flawed.
DC: What table?
Stephan just showed an example of expensive litigation to refute the claim that patents promote innovation. Am I missing the super-secret hidden argument there?
And did I not respond to that by pointing out how physical property rights litigation can also get expensive?
A proper analogy of this particular event would be preemptively suing someone for stealing your physical (real) property. Of course, no property has yet been stolen and, in this case, no real property ever will be.
Apparently this is a legitimate course of action in the worlds of IP and War?
Person, you’re trying to spark a debate about something with which this post isn’t concerned. Looking at whether or not something is the case is a different exercise than looking at the results or implications of that reality (should it be the case). Kinsella can’t be expected to spend his whole existence stuck in justifying his beliefs. There is a difference between theoretical work and practical analysis.
Oh, and congrats on pointing out that in this case Kinsella relies on his previous theoretical work in order to perform some practical analysis.
Person,
I apologize for trying to post information about real-world problems that result when non-scarce things are treated as property. In the future I will try to remain entirely abstract.
Actually, I take it as a compliment that you can’t take me seriously. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.
“The ways that software publishers capture rents even despite piracy are all due to the over-arching enforcement of IP laws, so the existence of profits-despite-piracy does not help you establish the possibility or viability of marketing software in an IP-less world.”
Thanks.
“1) you meekly assert some way to profit despite lack of IP enforcement,”
Not meek–tentative, since we can’t be sure what would happen in a free society. In communism what would be your answer if someone asks you how many brands of toothpaste would be available if you permit competition? 3? 10? See?
“3) you say that’s “not relevant here”"
quite right. Glad you’re understanding this now.
“4) as a bonus, you falsely attribute the position “there would be no innovation without IP” to me, and beat up that strawman like no one’s business!”
Well, yes, since you refuse to specify your position, we must guess. What is your position, Person?
“Now can you see why I [] take you seriously when you start trying to argue about consequences from changes in IP law[!]” Thanks. I appreciate that.
“Oh, but that’s okay — because after all, since I post under a pseudonym, that must mean your arguments aren’t flawed.”
Well, how could we know–no one takes a cowardly pseudonymous pest seriously.
“Stephan just showed an example of expensive litigation to refute the claim that patents promote innovation. Am I missing the super-secret hidden argument there?
“And did I not respond to that by pointing out how physical property rights litigation can also get expensive?”
Is the purpose of physical property rights to “incentivize” innovation?
Brent: “A proper analogy of this particular event would be preemptively suing someone for stealing your physical (real) property. Of course, no property has yet been stolen and, in this case, no real property ever will be.
“Apparently this is a legitimate course of action in the worlds of IP and War?”
Well, it can be patent infringement to even *offer for sale* an infringing product. Wow.
DC: Looking at whether or not something is the case is a different exercise than looking at the results or implications of that reality (should it be the case).Kinsella can’t be expected to spend his whole existence stuck in justifying his beliefs. There is a difference between theoretical work and practical analysis.
Okay… and what does that have to do with his blog post or my response?
Oh, and congrats on pointing out that in this case Kinsella relies on his previous theoretical work in order to perform some practical analysis.
I didn’t point that out. I was *responding* to the “argument” (and I use that term loosely) that Kinsella introduced in the blog post: “Ha ha ha, look at all the expensive litigation going on related to a patent. Heh heh, that can’t be promoting innovation! [but don't actually contest that point with me or else I'll call you a socialist, demand your biography, and dismiss the whole matter as irrelevant]“
I’m just responding to, you know, the contents of the post. I can’t be expected to divine the hidden message you always seem to think lurks in every piece you see on mises.org.
Stephan_Kinsella: I apologize for trying to post information about real-world problems that result when non-scarce things are treated as property.
Don’t be dense. I wasn’t contesting that you found a real-world problem related to IP enforcement. I was contesting the claim that this problem is somehow different from the kind that arises when property rights you *do like* are litigated. If physical property rights enforcement is “expensive” in the same sense, does that weaken the case for them? No? Well, there you go. (Oh, and just a heads-up — you user the term “scarce” inconsistently, but since I’ve explained that to you a thousand times, I won’t bother again.)
“The ways that software publishers capture rents even despite piracy are all due to the over-arching enforcement of IP laws, so the existence of profits-despite-piracy does not help you establish the possibility or viability of marketing software in an IP-less world.”
Thanks.
Okay, so you admit your error then. Thanks.
“1) you meekly assert some way to profit despite lack of IP enforcement,”
Not meek–tentative, since we can’t be sure what would happen in a free society. In communism what would be your answer if someone asks you how many brands of toothpaste would be available if you permit competition? 3? 10? See?
Sure, if that’s the position you want to take (that you’re not logically obligated to identify profit models), that’s great. But when you try to cite a solution, which violates the constraints of the problem posed, it is not irrelevant to point this out. In any case, your analogy is flawed. Your example would be more like replying to, “by what mechanism would a so-called free market determine how much toothpaste to make?” with “well, look, even today, managers received dictates from the central authority for how much to make — so obviously, it would work.” That is, your example showed the effectiveness of the existing system, not the alternate one you favored.
“3) you say that’s “not relevant here”"
quite right. Glad you’re understanding this now.
Fine — but don’t assert an argument for a position if you’re just going to dismiss ALL discussion of that position, ALL attempts to show how ridiculous that argument is, as irrelevant.
“4) as a bonus, you falsely attribute the position “there would be no innovation without IP” to me, and beat up that strawman like no one’s business!”
Well, yes, since you refuse to specify your position, we must guess. What is your position, Person?
My position was that “you didn’t show a *for profit* method for writing software”. I never said anything close to “no one would innovate anything if not for IP”.
“Now can you see why I [] take you seriously when you start trying to argue about consequences from changes in IP law[!]” Thanks. I appreciate that.
Grow up.
“Oh, but that’s okay — because after all, since I post under a pseudonym, that must mean your arguments aren’t flawed.”
Well, how could we know–no one takes a cowardly pseudonymous pest seriously.
Really? People with intellectual integrity are interested in knowing all of the flaws of their position, regardless of who thought of them. And we all know why it was important for me to post under a pseudonym: becuase you’re not above abusing admin privileges to personally go after those who post.
Is the purpose of physical property rights to “incentivize” innovation?
Depends on the advocate. HOWEVER, if someone said it was “no big deal” to abolish physical property rights, since “people would still produce goods in the absence of [neo-Lockean] property rights”, I doubt you would accept such a claim!
DC: “Person, you’re trying to spark a debate about something with which this post isn’t concerned. Looking at whether or not something is the case is a different exercise than looking at the results or implications of that reality (should it be the case). Kinsella can’t be expected to spend his whole existence stuck in justifying his beliefs. There is a difference between theoretical work and practical analysis.”
right. And as Samuel Johnson said, “Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.“
My position was that “you didn’t show a *for profit* method for writing software”.
Does anyone want to make a wager — that Person writes software for a living?
Is he truly motivated by the drive for intellectual honesty and logical rigor, as he would like us to believe? Person the True. Person the Pure of Heart. Person the Persecuted.
Or is the current IP regime merely a fat subsidy to his income, and he doesn’t like the idea of anti-IP Austrians threatening it?
George: “Does anyone want to make a wager — that Person writes software for a living?”
I know his real name and what he does for a living, but can’t say, b/c he goes apesh*t when you talk about this and acts like you’ve threatened some horrible act. Whatever. He’s an odd bird, him.
George: “Does anyone want to make a wager — that Person writes software for a living?”
i dont know if patents encourage innovation or not.
my dad is visually impaired and uses these products –
http://www.aisquared.com/Products/index.cfm (ZoomText Magnifier/Reader
Integrated magnification and screen reading for vision impaired computer users.)
he was a state employee all his life and the initial versions were purched by his state employer (around 500 bucks i think). his pensions purchesed the upgrades.
this here is a free download – http://www.naturalreaders.com/ – but doesnt enlarge the text. they do offer a pro version that reads text better.
i assume the aisquared product mentioned above has some patented text enlargement technology.
i dont know for sure but i expect that government (for visyually impaired employees) is a major purchaser of ai squared text enlargers as well as well off blind people.
this is a picture of ai squared headquarters. http://www.aisquared.com/AboutUs/index.cfm – not too bad.
if ai squared patents their technology….well, they have been able to innovate and create continued updates to their software.
could someone else have taken the technology further without existing patent or enforcements(or whatever the software equivalent is)…..probobly.
im just glad that taco bell didnt get a patent for the taco.
Comments on this entry are closed.