For Sale: Oceanfront Property In Arizona

Bonus?  From the front porch you can see the sea.  Now, if you’ll buy that I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free!


I know, it’s not the Golden Gate.
$20 goes to whoever can tell me what it is, and
where I was standing when the picture was taken. No joshin’.

This is, I think, what IP Nav is telling us here.  No no…I’m sure that’s what they’re telling us in their little ditty about how much they’re (almost) completely for all of the new laws and proposed laws to stop patent trolling .

When a patent troll comes out in support of the recent spate of congressional attempts to win favor with high-powered constituents proposed legislation, it seems as though they are using the argument to indicate that “Look, we cannot possibly be a troll because would a troll agree with the laws to curb trollish behavior?  Certainly not.  Ergo, we are not trolls.”

Guys?  I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

Before taking a dive at the actual substance of the article, I’d like to call out this statement:

None of the 12 proposals are what anyone would call “bold.” They are mostly relatively minor, or in some cases strictly cosmetic.  But they should be enough to convince big company supporters in the Valley that the Administration is doing something about the patent litigation problem.

Please look out your window to confirm that pigs aren’t flying, but I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve banged the drum enough so I won’t pull a Frazier Crane again (oh, the irony) but to me, the gov’t is the last place you want to go to solve the problem.  I would not and do not activelydiscourage support of the legal proposals, but I don’t think supporting them shows anyone you’re serious about anything other than the standard DC rhetoric.  It’s all for show folks, nothing to see there.  Now here?  There’s totally something to see here at That Patent Tool, like a place to enter demand letters.  {Ahem}

But anyway, that’s kinda my point with this whole IP Nav blog post:  if you think the proposals are all smoke and mirrors, why dignify them with a response at all?  Unless your point was to entertain in which case you succeeded because this?  This made me laugh (re: disclosing the “Real Party-in-Interest.”):

We support this, with one proviso: it has to be easy to comply with, and clear what needs to be done to be in compliance.

Let’s dig out the old PTT (Patent Troll Translator):

We would support this if you would make it so easy that it requires no effort at all.  Because if there’s anything we can’t stand, it’s having to work harder to hide what we’re trying to do.

Oh, brother.

I don’t suppose there’s a need for repeated cut and paste examples, but if you read carefully, or at all, you’ll notice that for every sentence agreeing with one of the proposals there’s a second sentence giving a caveat or a “we support it if…”.  So, you know, not exactly the “10 out of 12” ringing endorsements their blog post promised us.

Which is how we circle back to the title of this post because their title sold us something that evidently doesn’t exist.

Just sayin’,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s