DISQUS

The problem is that whenever Californians flee California, they try to turn their new home back into California. The reason Colorado, and Idaho, and Texas are more attractive and growing is that our taxes are low, our regulations are low, and we allow people freedom. Californians come in and start advocating for higher taxes, higher services, and more regulation. You turn all your destinations into the very place you had to flee.

So get a clue. High taxes, lots of regulations, huge state spending on services is NOT the way to go. It's why our Texas Governor is turning down some of the stimulus money, which Californians probably think is crazy.

Tim, you are transparently trying to change the subject. You bashed my op/ed. You said it was "remarkable for its lack of specificity" and you said I "never bothered to explain," even though you know that an op/ed is 700 words, and you can't explain every detail to every critic's satisfaction in 700 words. You at least implied that I was being "misleading." And then you accused DataTreasury of being extortionists.

All of these charges and suggestions of yours are wrong, as even a cursory bit of research on your part would have demonstrated.

When confronted, instead of owning up, which you never do, you are trying to change the subject to the validity of their patent, and the validity of business patents in general.

You are rhetorically sophomoric, Tim. Reading your blog postings is like looking at the desktop publishing that amateurs started putting out when Microsoft Publisher first came out. Anyone who could move a mouse thought they could do graphic design, just as anyone with a B.S. in computer science (you) now thinks they're qualified to rewrite U.S. legal structures, simply because of the development of blogs. Your logic is vapid and your papers would never be published by any serious institution.

The DataTreasury patents ARE valid. Much like the DMCA, courts have repeatedly found them to be solid. They have withstood numerous court challenges. It doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think--they are valid. Thus, what is happening is a travesty, DataTreasury is the victim, the politically powerful are trampling over the small, and you are exposed as a nincompoop who doesn't have the decency to recognize his mistakes and misjudgments and own up to them.

Your characterization of the DataTreasury patents is as misleading as most of your work, and anyone who actually follows the link to the patent itself will see that it is highly detailed, was thoroughly researched by USPTO, and has withstood multiple court challenges.

Lessig kept losing in court and finally gave up his quixotic efforts. You should do the same. Why don't you just go to Berkman and become a groupie volunteer?

Tim,

It was sloppy of you to do a blog entry questioning accurate claims in an op/ed without bothering to do a simple news search to read articles that answered your question. It was, frankly, a cheap shot.

Further, if you had anything approaching even a neutral view of patents, you would see that DataTreasury is the victim here. To paint them as "extortionate" given how they are being screwed in this case is just morally confused--but I continually find the rabid anti-IP crowd to be morally confused, whether it is defending pharmaceutical counterfeitors, or defending large companies for trampling over the inventors and holders of property rights.

I only hope your moral confusion doesn't extend into other areas of life. But I remember you writing something arguing that people ought to leave their wifi access points open and encourage people to free-ride on their contracts with network providers, in which you asserted that there was no security risk in doing so, so I think your moral confusion certainly leaks out into other areas of policy analysis.

Tim,

Just for amusement as I sit here in an Admirals Club awaiting a flight, I challenge you to point out anything in my op/ed that was factually wrong or incorrect.

Note that I do not say anything about any particular patent being valid, or a good idea. I simply state the facts at hand and explain why what is going on would set a bad precedent. Could you please explain what in my op/ed is objectionable?

We know that you don't like patents, especially this kind of patent. You don't have to tell us that. But I don't defend business model patents in the op/ed, either--I simply point out that a patent that has withstood multiple challenges has stood up, and that bad guys are trying to do an end run around the judicial process, and that this is a bad idea. Instead of using my op/ed as an excuse to both slam me and riff against patents, how about telling me what in my op/ed is actually either wrong, incorrect, or misleading?

Or, failing that, admit you were wrong to criticize my piece?

Tim, you're just too funny. Is a patent troll anyone who obtains a patent and then sues those who infringe it? I think you ought to stop writing your nonesense on IP and stick with stuff you know, like PERL scripts. Because the foolishness you write on IP discredits everything else you write to anyone who can think straight.

By the way, I'm an EXTREMELY effective advocate. I have (directly or mostly indirectly) helped build more good policy in my career than you can possibly tear down in yours.

If you view getting you to own up to the facts of the story as bullying, I embrace the role. You've been awfully liberal with criticism and sarcasm of others, but if anyone does the same to you, it's apparently "bullying." I'm even more impressed with you now than I was before, Tim.

Of course, now I see that the NYT article you cite is one from 2004!!!!!

How misleading of you to not share with your readers more updated, more accurate links such as this one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Tim,

You already know this, but the owner of DataTreasury IS the patent claimant. They are not "trolls" in that sense of the word. They didn't just go out and speculatively buy a patent in order to litigate--they are the claimants as well as the owners.

Though, for the record, I'm not opposed to trolling, either.

As to your other point about the taxpayer cost of the provision, you already know the answer to that as well from the NYT article.

You may disagree with the patent itself, but your whining about the lack of specificity in my article is baseless.

Oh, and by the way, IPI has been doing its part for the free-market cause for over 19 years now. And the Show-Me Institute has been around for how long? Have you made it a year yet?

Young pups never have a sense of perspective. Tim, you think you invented public policy analysis just because you're too new at it to know any better. You're a sophomore, and you should be more humble. It will be some time before you speak for the movement.

Fascinating, Tim, that you shoot down the study and then, at the very end, take a look at the executive summary. Generally, when people claim a dedication to intellectual honesty, they actually read a study before shooting it down.

And your economics training came from where?

You shot this study down because you are sympathetic to pirates and are a critic of the content owners and their defense of their property. I suggest that you read the study before commenting further, or you are going to be embarassed. Again.

Thanks for your kind words.

Tim,

And just to follow up on our conversation in Colorado the other day . . . from WHOM did your blog post get so much attention? From a bunch of radical lefties.

Enjoy your new friends.

I had to return 2 of them before I could get one that didn't overheat. Very frustrating. But the one I have now is terrific, and if you have a young son as I have, the Arcade games are sufficient without getting involved in the overly-complicated games.

So I guess that's a 66% return rate for me!

Tim,

I'm in Geneva, at WIPO, and I am literally SURROUNDED by people who think DRM ought to be outlawed. So I don't know what circles you move in, but you apparently aren't interacting very much with the activists.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for your naive rants about Peter Ferrara and IPI.