the author’s reply to our original post…
‘Come now. You use the word “theft” as if it were the same as stealing your car, when you know that patents are notoriously difficult to interpret and people like Lemelson exploited this to make money off of “inventions” that were merely illustrations of the patent lawyer’s art. Yes patents are constitutionally protected property, but don’t pretend they aren’t also tools for extracting settlements representing less than the cost of litigation.’
Inventors invest far more in their inventions than they or anyone else ever does in a car -often their life’s savings. They are poor comparisons. Nevertheless, both are property -private property. America was built on that concept.
Anyone who understands patent law will know that the ‘four corners of a patent’ aren’t as hard to understand as infringers would like juries and a trusting public to believe. The courts invest a great amount of time and effort to understand them. That is in part why patent suits are so expensive for both sides. In fact, if a court determines that the claims in a patent are vague, they will be invalidated for that reason.
Whatever Lemelson was, or may have been is irrelevant to the whole of patent law and the concept of private property. We all know the depredations of Standard Oil and RCA. Using your reasoning, should we then nationalize all public and private corporations like Russia?
As to settlements in patent suits, what infringers always fail to state is that the peanuts they pay to get out of patent suits is often a trifling compared to what their true exposure was. They should thank their lucky stars they got out (no doubt but that in private they do) before they got scalped like many invention thieves are.
Yours are the same specious arguments used by infringers while trying to mislead the public and gullible or corrupt politicians. Are you a legitimate journalist, or a pseudo journalist/pr spin doctor paid by large infringers? You write like the latter.