No he doesn't. You are an idiot.
the largest patent reform since the 1950â(TM)s.
I don't know what happened in the 50's, but if it was monumentally huge, and the American Invents Act of 2011 changed a single letter, the AIA could still be the largest since then, without being large. Here, let me show you another. I among the most intelligent and attractive people in the world, and among the richest. If I tell you my percentile in each category is 51, that sounds less impressive. You said nothing at all, and you seem like it was supposed to sway someone. Parent poster was swayed, so I guess you have that going for you. Which is good.
The issues are what purpose do patents serve and how do we best foster innovation?
Re-framing the debate
I don't remember that being the issue. The issue is patent trolls, who enforce patents solely for profit and without requiring any of the protections afforded by patents, because you do not make any products that a competitor might copy. You don't make anything at all. You are a sinkhole for the money of the American consumer who cannot afford to buy in to your scheme, a money maker for those who can, and otherwise do not and cannot promote the arts and useful sciences.
If there were no copyright laws, do you think AMC would spend $3 million on each episode of Breaking Bad? If anybody could just copy it and give the content away on the Internet why would they? Without copyright laws there would be no Mad Men, New York Times, or Call of Duty.
Rhetoric, irrelevant statistics, and false assertions
Didn't Hollywood get its start because it was out of the patent arm of Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company? Look at the IP (copyright) created by violators of IP (patent).
If there were no copyright laws, cable television would have grown because people wanted ad-free TV. Then broadcasters figured out they could get money from both ends. Cable would still have revenue, and AMC would spend money on Breaking Bad because they would get revenue from cable and satellite operators. I can pull assertions out of my ass, too, only they sound plausible.
People can watch anything they want for free right now, but it is easy and affordable to pay monthly subscriptions to watch things when they air, mostly reliably. And although the irony or discussing copyright vs. patent did not elude you, you also didn't stop to really consider what you were saying.
Would Cisco be able to afford its R&D if factories in China could copy its products and sell them here for a fraction of Ciscoâ(TM)s price? Would Microsoft be spending millions on Windows 8 if each update could be freely copied and distributed? Would GE spend money designing wind turbines if others could copy the designs at will?
Rhetorical questions, the core of rhetoric. Chinese knock-offs are commonplace, and it is almost expected that if you make electronics in Asia you will get clones, or anti-circumvention devices very quickly. Companies like Apple have been good to companies like Foxconn - and the markup on their products is high enough that they can release the next generation quickly, making more on each device. Look at the adoption rates of the latest and next to latest devices for iProducts, and compare with Android. I'll let you find your own studies to study. iProducts are almost nothing in the second generation. Cisco specifically - they bought LinkSys and the product line went to crap. They have a second-rate product line with a brand name that allows them to gather money on crap dumped to market and use it for R and D. And a devoted following for anything that runs wrt54g. So yeah, they would. Microsoft's own policy for a while was "If they are going to pirate something, it should be Windows". So yes it was and they did. And GE - what the fuck is wrong with you, I can't build a fucking turbine in my back yard. Almost no company could jump into the turbine business dead, and the ones that could have their own energy plans, or no plans in the energy space. It would be like stealing the formula to Coke - absolutely useless, since the brand name is what sells.
That I spent $1.6 million of my own money trying to realize our vision of a custom listening experience that ended up, at the end of the day, being implemented in the form of a cassette tape product, and not the digital player system we envisioned and patented.
Sorry, empathy building
You had a shit idea that was either out-sold or out-marketed or under-designed. I guess that's not "either"; that's a lot of things that could have gone wrong, and I doubt
Where the hell did you get $1.6 million? I'm supposed to feel empathy for someone who wasted $1.6 million on a doomed product? No, you're a tool. And not a useful one.
Please keep in mind, I am trying to remain as fact-based as I can, and the fact is you are a tool. Unless there are pertinent details you omitted so I'd skip the thinking and jump straight to "feel bad for the dude for spending more money than I will make, after taxes, and getting scooped".
When I left MicroTouch to start Personal Audio in 1996, we employed 500 people making touch screens in Massachusetts. Without those patents, we would never have gotten the company off the ground.
The point of the story, besides the fact that patents can play a leading role in driving innovation, is that often the inventor and the implementer are, and should be, two different people or companies. Bill had no desire to build or run a company. He retired off our royalties and went on to invent other things. Blair and I went on to build a company and an industry.
Oh, that's where you got the money. That sounds like a classic business partnership, and because you were at the beginning of this, you were able to get a marketable product out the door and into millions of doors.
Could you have come up with an exclusive contract and achieved the same goal? Sounds like yes to me. You needed each other, that just screams partnership. Or buggery, but I'm not saying that.
Why would you want a system that mandated such âoevertical integrationâ, where the inventor has to be the producer?
Framing the argument
Not re-framing. This is just framing, where you get to omit stuff you don't want to talk about. Short answer: yes, without explanation. Long answer: as long as the inventor holds a stake of the company, most people would be satisfied. You licensed something, it worked out for both parties. If Bill believed in his product, he could have skin in the game and probably come out further ahead. Or a simple profit sharing without licensing. Your example shows what is possible, but does not demonstrate what makes your situation so unique that it requires patent licensing where a non-producing company like yours holds the rights to lots of things it neither invented nor produces. You are ignoring the question.
And I'm done. I've typed enough. James Logan, the founder of Personal Audio, does not have a sound argument that stands up to the slightest scrutiny. His claims of Hollywood's success, and the TV and Video Game success that followed, are predicated on IP theft. His rhetorical questions are easily answered. His ability to frame and re-frame the question demonstrate a moving target, not one that is defensible. Security through verbosity. James Logan, the as previously self-evidenced tool, has not made an argument. He has made a plea to emotion. At every turn, he wants you to empathize, sympathize, or feel some need for something you have which - as he claims - would not exist without his world view.
I assert quite vehemently the opposite. Americans would have invented quite liberally here with or without a patent system to protect them. Prove me wrong.