I was told that Jamison settled his lawsuit with Winchester and Browning. In essence, he has all patent rights to the WSM case.

Can you extrapolate on this and give some backgroud info on this?

Gun writer Rick Jamison went and patented a short mag case (5,826,361 /6,675,717/ 6,678,983).

Then there was a patent infringment lawsuit involving Winchester and Browning over the WSM, which he claimed was a replica of his patented short mag.

Winchester and Browning have settled the suit, the details are sealed. In essence, the challenge by these two manufacturers has ended. Jamison has full patent rights to this case. Anyone manufacturing guns, brass, ammo, etc in the WSM case are responsible to contact Jamison for approval before using. The royality would be determined by Jamison.

The U.S. patent system has run amok. There is nothing unique or novel about the WSM cases. What a bunch of hogwash.

Jamison used the 404 case. CorBon did the same thing in at least one caliber.
The WSM is a rimless 50-110 cut down. I don't see how this works.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana-be:
Jamison used the 404 case. CorBon did the same thing in at least one caliber.
The WSM is a rimless 50-110 cut down. I don't see how this works.

Method patents cover a unique use of combinations of existing products and/or devices.

They are necessary in general to encourage the development of ideas. It's called enterprenurism (new word, LOL?).

While it may be stretching the point in any one particular case it, is good for the health of business at large.

jamison published these as a gunwriter, retaining intellectual capital for the work, and yes he used the 404 cases

3 years later winchester came out with the "WSM"

and I am DAMN glad to hear (if) he won, as george hoffman got screwed by remington over EXACTLY the same thing... .0025" difference


BTW, rick's cases are generally 1gr less water than the WSM's reported volumes.

jeffe

No patent should be issued for a brass cartridge case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is absurd

I just read over the patents, and I for one don't see how anyone could have gotten a patent on this rot.

5,826,361 tries to back patent cartridges of the proportions of the .350 and 6.5 Rem Mags, which were developed decades before. If there is any difference at all, it was taking the belt off these. The patent claims superior feeding, but I've not heard any complaints regarding the .350. Good grief. (Did I mention the .33 WCF circa 1903 or the 8x50R Hungarian of 1888 have similar proportions?)

The 6,675,717 regurgitates 5,826,361 but tries to patent cartridges proportioned after the 7.62x39 or 6 PPC, only scaled up to a larger base diameter. Big freakin' deal. He makes some claims about improved ignition and efficiency, but this is old hat itself.

In the Cartridges of the World he edited, McPherson proposed a far more pronounced short, fat cartridge. It at least had a novel idea: it was so short the primer blast, even from the rear of the case, would likely get some of the benefits of frontal ignition. Jamison tries to glom onto this work -- 3 years after the fact.

Jamison's B.S. offers nothing but work for parasitic lawyers. It only cements my low opinion of him as a writer.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:
No patent should be issued for a brass cartridge case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is absurd

No one should be able to patent a steel tool!!!!!!! That's absurd!

I must agree with MajorCaliber here. There's nothing new under the sun in this field. It's all just marketing hoopla, and the lawyers just want to get their fingers in the pie. Disgusting. (McPherson's idea has something new, yes, but it isn't very practical, leading to bizzarely proportioned firearms.)

quote:

is good for the health of business at large

Only good for the Lawyers

No, good for guys like me and you who have an idea we want to market but can't withstand a big boy stealing the idea before we have an opportunity to profit from it. It protects thousands of Davids from a few Golaths long enough for the Davids of the world think it worth the effort to try. Lawyers are lucky if they see 1/1,000,000th of the money the system generates.

.

Actually these are the exceptions, Alf to a rule that works well. There have been trolls since the invention of the bridge to hide under, eh?

tiggertate: I suspect Jeffe's .416 Hoffman example fits your argument. Hoffman's idea was nearly useless without Remington's marketing clout. I don't see where Hoffman deserved a single cent.

ALF: if you read your post, you'll see you praise the Blackberry suit and then turn around and call them a "patent troll". For both, you describe patenting only an idea. And just to be annoying, I'll note that what Hitler did in rounding up the Jews (or Roosevelt the US citizens of Jap descent) was all perfectly legal, and all perfectly immoral. What is the law is not always right, but it is the law. (Admittedly side tracking onto an old, old debate on morals, etc.)

Frankly, as an engineer, I'd be happy to see most of the patent system scrapped. "Method" patents are BS. Hell, my name is on a dozen patents, and I think every one of those patents is garbage. All were straightforward engineering solutions that the company lawyers thought might be useful for harrassing the competition. Makes me boil. This sort of stuff only serves to stifle innovation by making companies hesitant to market useful products for fear some badly worded patent describing some guy's wet dream might actually apply. I know that from experience.

Man, I'm hot under the collar now...

Ideas can't be owned, for they can be derived separately. Property is the unique creation of somebody's labor. Several people can make the same thing and each has equal property rights. With ideas, the guy with the lawyer gets all the rights. Equating ideas with property is utterly a legal fiction. There is no analogy to physical property.

Patents were to grant limited rights to an idea to protect those who invested great effort in making a working idea. The best modern example is a new drug. Necking up the .375 Wea. to make a .416 Hoffman is simply marketing, not innovation. "Developing" that .416 took about half a second of brain work to invent and an hour or so draw up. I see no reason to protect this.

Yeah, if it takes many man-years to develop and only man-weeks to copy, yes, grant a patent. Otherwise, keep the lawyers out of it.

OK, enough from me. I need to go take a cold shower. grrrrrrrrr

Spoken like a true engineer. OTOH, an artist would take exception to your dismissal of intellectual property. Unfortunately law cannot be written well enough to clearly accomodate differences between the two, anymore than the law can accomodate the differences between a culture that allows polygamy and one that doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
tiggertate: I suspect Jeffe's .416 Hoffman example fits your argument. Hoffman's idea was nearly useless without Remington's marketing clout. I don't see where Hoffman deserved a single cent.

ALF: if you read your post, you'll see you praise the Blackberry suit and then turn around and call them a "patent troll". For both, you describe patenting only an idea. And just to be annoying, I'll note that what Hitler did in rounding up the Jews (or Roosevelt the US citizens of Jap descent) was all perfectly legal, and all perfectly immoral. What is the law is not always right, but it is the law. (Admittedly side tracking onto an old, old debate on morals, etc.)

Frankly, as an engineer, I'd be happy to see most of the patent system scrapped. "Method" patents are BS. Hell, my name is on a dozen patents, and I think every one of those patents is garbage. All were straightforward engineering solutions that the company lawyers thought might be useful for harrassing the competition. Makes me boil. This sort of stuff only serves to stifle innovation by making companies hesitant to market useful products for fear some badly worded patent describing some guy's wet dream might actually apply. I know that from experience.

Man, I'm hot under the collar now...

Ideas can't be owned, for they can be derived separately. Property is the unique creation of somebody's labor. Several people can make the same thing and each has equal property rights. With ideas, the guy with the lawyer gets all the rights. Equating ideas with property is utterly a legal fiction. There is no analogy to physical property.

Patents were to grant limited rights to an idea to protect those who invested great effort in making a working idea. The best modern example is a new drug. Necking up the .375 Wea. to make a .416 Hoffman is simply marketing, not innovation. "Developing" that .416 took about half a second of brain work to invent and an hour or so draw up. I see no reason to protect this.

Yeah, if it takes many man-years to develop and only man-weeks to copy, yes, grant a patent. Otherwise, keep the lawyers out of it.

OK, enough from me. I need to go take a cold shower. grrrrrrrrr

So, if the amount of time spent in R&R is the justification of a patent, then what of the genius who can think it up, without mistakes in a short amount of time? Does he no longer deserve compensation and protection for his ingenuity because he is too quick with his thinking processes?

I was also under the impression that new patents are reviewed for the purpose of identifying previous patents for the same thing. It just seems Winchester didn't do, or didn't want to do, their homework.

tiggertate: history, of course, supports your argument that it is not possible to craft the law well enough. OTOH, history suggested, upto about 1900, that man could not fly. I see no reason to give up trying. The ratio of development time to copying time as a figure of merit seems a possible solution. Perhaps it has been tried. The copyright on art is indeed analogous to patents, and it too falls under the category of long in the making, quick in the copying. Hmmmm, except for maybe a photo snapshot.

mike_elmer: Good point regarding the genius. The other point, on patent reviews is, I think, off base. The patent review is cursory. The Patent Office is more concerned with collecting patent fees; they let the lawyers haggle over infringment in the courts.

Maybe another cold shower is needed...

.

ALF: my gripe isn't that he has successfully defended rights legally created, it is whether those rights should have been granted in the first place. To my (not always so humble) way of thinking, Jamison's ideas are trivial and not worthy of any legal protection. How to define worthy is indeed a problem. Seems to be one of those "I know it when I see it" things judges fall back on for issues like pornography -- which further undercuts my argument.

If Canada patents only those items actually brought to fruition, the US may well have something to learn from them. I obviously don't "celebrate" my country's patent system.

mike_elmer: on second thought, geniuses are paid better by their employers than are idiots, and perhaps this is sufficient. The genius argument is likely a rare special case, but certainly worth of further consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
ALF: my gripe isn't that he has successfully defended rights legally created, it is whether those rights should have been granted in the first place. To my (not always so humble) way of thinking, Jamison's ideas are trivial and not worthy of any legal protection.

and to think the telephone was nearly NOT granted a patent, due to funtionability....


asdf,
if you had came into the company, holding those patents you mentioned, as an individual, I am certain "allowing" the company to make money off them, without you being paid for every widget, would be EXACTLY what you would do, right?

genius... are generally not paid well, nor held in high esteem... MARKETEERS, however, are.

do you think edison actually thought of every single filiment (over 10,000 tried) that went into a light bulb?

do you know the guy who thought "tugnsten" ?

didn't think so.

jeffe

ALF: my apologies for distorting your original comments.

jeffe: since I don't think anyone should be able to patent a mere idea, the point is moot -- I should never have the chance. I feel holding such patents is rather like finding a stash of stolen money, and not wanting to return it. It's nice to get rich, but it should be done honorably.

Did I know who invented the tungsten filament. Nope, but I did look it up just now. Was it just a thought, or did it take a long time in a research lab? It took lab work. Did I ever say such work shouldn't be protected? Didn't think so.

Dreaming is free. Making them reality is what needs to be protected, not the dreaming.

The only good argument for creating a patent system is that it improves productivity by encouraging people to work to find a solution to a problem. Some things take considerable time to develop yet can be copied in an instant; software is the perfect example. Without patent and its cousin copyright, there's no doubt many useful items would be long delayed in their introduction. That would lower productivity. On the other hand some guy sitting around patenting trivial ideas in the hope some marketing agent will later stumble onto a similar idea isn't doing anyone any good, and the legal hassles it creates undoubtably lower productivity. Jamison's case is an example of this.

The sole advantage of the current US patent system is that it is fairly easy to define. The ideas I've tossed up in the above posts would create paperwork hassles, each company having to carefully document all its research in order to set a standard for development time. Perhaps this would be more cumbersome than the current system.

I'll close by noting that the Wall Stree Journal -- no enemy of American business -- has run many critical articles over the last few years pointing out the abuses in the patent system. This system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

OK, it's time to move this thread to the Politics forum. I'll (try to) bow out.

Karl

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
jeffe: since I don't think anyone should be able to patent a mere idea, the point is moot --

and if you had ended your post here, I wouldn't have replied, beyound saying I disagree 100% with you...

quote:

Dreaming is free. Making them reality is what needs to be protected, not the dreaming.

Yes, you have actually stated the discussion closer here. You have, without out a doubt, closed this discussion by agreeing to TT and I. If it ain't a dream, it needs to be protect. The patent office agrees, and requires "work product" (according to kind, of course) to be done to receive a patent. The patent process alone is non-trival, in terms of cost and "work" .. especially to the individual.

quote:

The only decent argument for creating a patent system is that it improves productivity by encouraging people to work to find a solution to a problem.

I totally disagree. Patents don't have to have a direct industrial application. The light bulb certainly didn't. Nor did the microprocessor WHEN CREATED. These things MAKE markets.

But, you are also speaking as an engineer, which precludes you from considering art, science, literary, and even musical patents.

quote:

.. the other hand some guy sitting around patenting trivial ideas in the hope some marketing agent will later stumble onto it isn't doing anyone any good, and the legal hassles it creates undoubtably lower productivity. Jamison's case is an example of this.

like the light bulb? the microprocessor? How about the torc fussion nuclear generator? They have or had ZERO "productivity" at time of patent.. and most didn't for 5-10 years after patented..

Jamison did work, tested, developed and patented a line of stuff (all of which you call work), that did NEW things. Things judged to be new enough that FN (win/browning/etc) decided that it was good enough, and a productive enough for that copany to spend MILLIONS on..

Now, Karl, you can answer me one question, and then we can stop... How is a trival patent to YOU be worth millions of investment dollars (and therefore at least that and profit in sales) ???

I would say that which ever your answer, either "okay, it is worth something" or "FN was foolish" .. or even "it was worthless till FN added money" ... actually all say the same thing.. the patent and content had value to someone.. just not YOU

quote:

I'll close by noting that the Wall Stree Journal -- no enemy of American business -- has run many critical articles over the last few years pointing out the abuses to the patent system that have been created. This system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

Yes, the WSJ would have the prespective, as its one of the mouthpieces of corporate america. Their bias is to protect the CORPORATION and its intellectual property rights, not the individual. Corporations don't "create" and don't make patents... People do (like yourself) and are frequently forced to sign over rights for them.

quote:

OK, it's time to move this thread to the Politics forum. I'll (try to) bow out.
Karl

Thanks for deciding what I can post and reply about... If you like, you can let this drop, esspecially since you have very successfully argued TT and I's side for us.

jeffe

Claim no. 1 of Jamison's patent no. 6,676,717:

quote:

A cartridge for firing in a mating short-action firearm chamber, said cartridge having a projectile and an elongate tubular case, having a first end defining a substantially circular base with an annular rim and groove, capable of operably withstanding, and having sufficient propellant to fire at, an internal gas pressure of at least 50,000 psi when in said chamber, and being operably extractable manually after firing at said pressure, said case having a second end defining a mouth for insertably receiving said projectile, said case having a first portion of substantially cylindrical shape adjacent to said first end and a second portion of a narrower substantially cylindrical shape adjacent to said second end, and a frusto-conical shoulder portion interconnecting said first portion and said second portion, said case having an overall length extending between said first end and said second end, and said first portion having a first portion diameter of at least about 0.53 inch at a location where said first portion interconnects with said shoulder portion, said overall length having a ratio to said first portion diameter at said location of no more than about 3.5, said first portion having a first portion length extending between said first end and said shoulder portion, said first portion length having a ratio to said first portion diameter of no more than about 3.

quote:

In essence, he has all patent rights to the WSM case

He reinvented the 404-based wide short bottle even before Lazzeroni?

Good for Rick Jamison, Fuck FN, Browning, and USRAC.

FWIW...somewhere in my stack of old magazines, I remember seeing an add or article about a Calif. gunsmith that was offering rifles & brass for a short magnum using 348 Win's with the rim cut down and improved, in 1958. This is very close to the WSM.

The there was the HE express guy doing the same thing much later, but I don't know if that was before Jamison or not.

jeffe: Go read the history of the light bulb. It was underdevelopment for over 50 years. A replacement for combustion lamps was sorely needed. The claim it created it's own market is downright silly. Now come on, do you really believe those working on the microprocessor thought the mainframes of the day weren't cumbersome, or in need of improvement, that vacuum tubes were pinnacle of development? All the developments you cite took years of labor to create, far more time than it would to duplicate that work once offered to the public. This is the thrust of my arguments.

Jamison's work was little more than his imagination at work. To codify it (draw) took about 1 hour. I see no need to protect such a trivial work. At best, he did nothing more than scale up existing designs. His example is like saying a bigger car or a bigger truck needs patent protection. His earlier patent simply took the rim off 100+ year old designs. Useless work needs no protection.

As for your claim I can't appreciate art, etc. go back an read my posts. I have no problem with copyright. In some ways, it is an extreme example of patent protection. Some art (and engineered software) can be reproduced by the zillions at very low cost and effort. This is the very argument I put forth in favor of patent protection.

However, copyright goes beyond this. Set a dozen different groups of engineers to work on the same goal, and their functional results will often be the same. I feel all the groups are entitled to the fruits of those labors, something that can be denied under the US patent system. Set a dozen different artists to work, and each result may be similiar, but each is unique, and the copyright system lets each artist have full rights to their work, unlike patent. If applied to the labors called "art," the patent system is analogous to a guy publishing a photo of the Manhattan skyline and then demanding that every tourist that snaps a photo of the skyline pay him royalties.

Can a fair alternative to the US patent system be devised? Perhaps not, but I hope so. I won't claim to have the alternative. I know the current system is twisted and should be fixed. Oh, and don't dismiss the WSJ, for in this case they want to help the consumers: their principle gripe is the major drug companies bullying the generic makers via useless patent extensions.

There certainly are weaknesses in my arguments, and McPherson's cartridge is an example. This took little effort to develop, but it was unique and has some thermodynamic benefits. At the very least, the concept of "novel" needs to be reaffirmed in the patent process.

quote:

Originally posted by Peakebrook:
Gun writer Rick Jamison went and patented a short mag case (5,826,361 /6,675,717/ 6,678,983).

Then there was a patent infringment lawsuit involving Winchester and Browning over the WSM, which he claimed was a replica of his patented short mag.

Winchester and Browning have settled the suit, the details are sealed. In essence, the challenge by these two manufacturers has ended. Jamison has full patent rights to this case. Anyone manufacturing guns, brass, ammo, etc in the WSM case are responsible to contact Jamison for approval before using. The royality would be determined by Jamison.

That being so I'd guest off hand you're going to see the WSM calibers die. I never felt they really filled a nitche that other rifles didn't have covered. It was basically a marketing ploy.

Would this spell the return of the Remington Short Action Ultra Mags?

Oh well****** I think I'll check out cast bullets and than go to bed roger

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Johnson:

quote:

Originally posted by Peakebrook:
Gun writer Rick Jamison went and patented a short mag case (5,826,361 /6,675,717/ 6,678,983).

Then there was a patent infringment lawsuit involving Winchester and Browning over the WSM, which he claimed was a replica of his patented short mag.

Winchester and Browning have settled the suit, the details are sealed. In essence, the challenge by these two manufacturers has ended. Jamison has full patent rights to this case. Anyone manufacturing guns, brass, ammo, etc in the WSM case are responsible to contact Jamison for approval before using. The royality would be determined by Jamison.

That being so I'd guest off hand you're going to see the WSM calibers die. I never felt they really filled a nitche that other rifles didn't have covered. It was basically a marketing ploy.

Good point. The option available the big boys is to let Jamison's patent languish and go another direction.

Always the risk associated with annoying those who can out-spend you. I assume in this case Jamison at least waited until there was enough product in circulation to make it painful for FN et al to cease production.

karl, perhaps this got lost, but to bring you back on point ...You keep "inventing" new things to discuss, rather than close the ones open.

quote:

Now, Karl, you can answer me one question, and then we can stop... How is a trival patent to YOU be worth millions of investment dollars (and therefore at least that and profit in sales) ???

jeffe

jeffe: I really don't think I've strayed from the point at all, but I will address the point you wish to emphasize, even if I can't resist a brief aside to begin. Frankly, all the money you mention really hasn't anything to do with the patent's worth. Patents grant a monopoly. Monopolies for popular products produce big profits. Are you saying monopolies are good for the economy and the consumer?

One goal of the current patent system is to give monopoly profits to the first one to file the paperwork. It is hoped this creates an incentive to bring products to market faster, but I doubt this has ever been proven to be so. Still, it's not an entirely far fetched idea. Is Jamison's unoriginal idea really worth all the shooter's using these cartridges paying him a royalty? I think not. This is a drain on the economy and shooter's pocket books.

In this case, Jamison's patent was worthless when it came to creating profits. Winchester's marketing created all the profits by creating a fad. Winchester has released dozens of successful cartridges over the years, very few of which really had a "need" or an advantage. What will the next fad be? Beats me. I'm sure Winchester is working on it now, and I'm sure it will bring them more profits. Bully for them.

If you need proof that Winchester's marketing -- and not Jamison's patented "invention" -- created the profits, you need only consider mb's post. In searching my memory for 100 year old cartridges that fit the "invention" in Jamison's garbage patent, I completely neglected Lazzeroni's extensive line of short magnums, which were on the market before Jamison's patent was even filed. Did these designs generate profits as great as Winchester's marketing did? No. Lazzeroni is just too small to create such a fad.

Of course, as other's have pointed out in these forums, the WSM line and its ilk were a silly idea in the first place, and I'm quite pleased this settlement must raise the cost of the WSMs. Now we can all get back to using the .300 and .375 H&H, like we should have been doing all along.

Karl

(I've spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time with this. Sorry everyone. I need to keep off my soapbox and watch for Wildcat Forum questions to which I might be able to contribute useful information.)

Karl,
Feel free to answer this post...

the concept of a patent must make a profit is entirely yours, no one elses. Do you think telephones and microprocessors made a profit for the first DECADE after they were invented?

The answer is no, and don't bother wenging about it.

So, in Karl's world Jamsion deserved nothing for his work (regardless of how much there was) ...

but in the real world the rest of us share, He got something.


Why don't you join the rest of us in reality, Karl?

jeffe

With all due respect, morphing a patent into a monopoly is a literary device unworthy of a critial argument.

And I think your last comment about the 300 and 375 reaveals the true focus of your post; the WSMs are what you find unworthy of a patent and you're taking it out on Jamison.

You're welcome that opinion but the merits or lack thereof of the WSMs are not a reflection on the patent system as a whole.

tiggertate:

quote:

morphing a patent into a monopoly is a literary device unworthy of a critial argument.

The people who invented patents thought they were monopolies; I'll quote the Columbia Encyclopedia:

quote:

Patents developed out of the medieval institution of allowing monopolistic control over useful goods in order to encourage their sale and distribution; the authority was contained in letters patent (meaning open, i.e., public). The corrupt sale of such privileges and the consequent increase in the price of necessities led in England to the Statute of Monopolies (1623), which abolished all monopolies except [emphasis mine] those of inventors in their inventions.

which further goes on to note the monopolist nature of US patents:

quote:

Unlike many European countries where the rights to patents are limited so as to make innovations in industry easier, the United States does not require the patentee to permit the use of the invention on pain of losing the patent.

and there's the Wikipedia:

quote:

One interesting side effect of modern day patent usage is that the small-time inventor can use the monopoly status to become a licensor.

You are quite correct that the merits of the WSM are not an idictment of the patent system. That an unoriginal idea was awarded a patent is. You are also correct that I should not have let fly ungentlemanly remarks about Jamison, and I regret those.

jeffe: you're the one who made the argument that the profits implied the patent was worthy. I simply refuted your point.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:


The only good argument for creating a patent system is that it improves productivity by encouraging people to work to find a solution to a problem. Some things take considerable time to develop yet can be copied in an instant; software is the perfect example. Without patent and its cousin copyright, there's no doubt many useful items would be long delayed in their introduction. That would lower productivity. ...
Karl

Karl,
you said

quote:

jeffe: you're the one who made the argument that the profits implied the patent was worthy. I simply refuted your point.

When, actually, you made the statement.. and poo-pooed "method" or "improvement" patents, naming your own patents as examples.

Following your logic and lead, and just trying to keep us on (a limited number of) point(s)..

You have strongly stated that patenting a "Dream" is rubbish.. yet, when the lightbulb was created, there was NO means of moving light beyond a few select (read hundreds of total units) locations.. and the telephone had EXACTLY 2 possible instances of use... Dreams, even in the most liberal, kindest read into them...

and today there are billions of phones and trillions of light bulbs.. all built from the same basic concepts...

and, funny enough, the telephone was intially 48vdc ground start loop ... why DC? because before tesla (there's another man that patented "dreams") DC was edision's view of the electrical world...

and today, we all have AC electricity (based off tesla's "dreamer" patents) running lights, powering 90% of the telecom industry (still a strong plant wiring DC in that space-- one of the last legacies)....


Why am I rambling?

because three totally unrelated patents, that have a "dream" driving them, are in every house in the western world, driving the lights we are reading the PC's from...

or, in short, it is not possible to determine what is a "dream" from what is "increased producivity"....

tesla's turbines are a perfect example

jeffe

Apologies; I guess I stand corrected in that regard. I'm just a hard core property rights guy and have a hard time accepting that it is better to remove patent rights if an idea remains idle than to respect an ivdividual's right of ownership. Similar to suggesting a landowner surrenders his mineral rights if he refuses to produce those minerals for the good of society. After all, it's even easier to write a check than have a brain fart.

Same difference to me.

The fact that the system can be abused on occaision is true of any endeavor. I wonder how many European patents have been jerked to benefit a friend or conspirator?