> Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy.
Simply not true. The work I do helps independent inventors protect themselves, and it helps startups get funding... believe me, I have no qualms about what I do. It is a net positive for the economy and for people who create things.
> Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass murder. It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's still evil, like Hitler.
There you go again. I'm done responding to this nonsense though.
> You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies.
First of all, people who don't like the patent system are not my enemies. They simply hold different beliefs than I do. And second, all I'm asking is that people educate themselves to a very minor level before making asses of themselves.
> I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred.
I suspect not many people hold your extreme beliefs about imprisonment. Disbarment... who knows. If one has gotten the short end of the stick in a patent dispute, I guess it could make him dislike patent attorneys.
> No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present practices.
There's simply no reason to believe this. If Congress made a clear law prohibiting software patents, and it was a well-drafted law, then it would be followed.
> Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.)
Nor should they. U.S. patents have no force outside the U.S. Chinese patents, however...
> There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every other "country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of WIPO's derriere.
You know WIPO isn't a U.S. organization, right? It's part of the U.N. It's in Geneva.
> I wanted to highlight this truly remarkable response, which displays the complete prostitution of the patent industry. Imsgine a literary agent saying: "on more than one occasion, I've told an author he couldn't get his book published."
So we've gone from you being "quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your 'inventors'" . . . to "OK, but you don't say it often enough! But there are three things to note here:
1. Most of the clients who come in my door legitimately have come up with something that is, as far as I know, novel. But hey, I'm not an expert in every field, and I don't always do a patent search (it's not a requirement, and clients often don't want to spend the money).
2. It opens me up to a malpractice suit to tell someone "you cannot get a patent on that." Because what if I'm wrong? There's a lot of uncertainty around this question, so this is a phrase reserved for cases where I'm pretty damn sure.
3. You don't know how many clients I've served, or what percentage of them I've turned away. Hell, I dunno either. But I call them like I see them. I have a duty to my clients not to waste their money on a patent I know will never issue. In the cases where I'm sure enough to risk the malpractice claim, I tell them not to bother. I'm not sure what more I could do.
Just so you know, I've enjoyed our discussion today. With the exception of your Hitler comments, you've been pretty reasonable, and I try listen to conflicting, but reasonable, opinions with an open mind. I ask that you do the same. I'm not some demon, and I'm not ashamed of anything I do.