Online Auction Industry In A State Of Limbo 329
theodp writes "It seems the online auction industry is in a state of limbo after last week's ruling that eBay violated patents belonging to MercExchange. MercExchange said it will file an injunction against eBay to keep them from using the technology, eBay said it will file motions to overturn the verdict, and MercExchange is ultimately looking to sell its entire portfolio of auction-related patents. Names being bandied about as possible acquirers include Amazon, Yahoo and eBay itself. Whoever holds the patents may require other sites to pay them licensing royalties."
And the bidding begins... (Score:2, Funny)
Another bad patent... (Score:2, Interesting)
Intellectual Property for Auctions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intellectual Property for Auctions (Score:4, Funny)
That's how I get rid of worthless crap I don't want.
Re:Intellectual Property for Auctions (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a bit of truth to that statement that nobody seems to have noticed yet. Take note of the following statement from the story:
MercExchange is ultimately looking to sell its entire portfolio of auction-related patents. Names being bandied about as possible acquirers include Amazon, Yahoo and eBay itself.
Doesn't it seem like MercExchange is using the threat of litigation in order to coerce eBay into purchasing these patent
Is this why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether you think society is too litigious is your opinion. But, to blame that on "lawyers" and not all the assholes who file the frivilous suits is not "insightful" at all.
Re:Is this why... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Have you ever dealt with a lawyer? No? I have. Plenty. In my experience, the vast majority of lawyers are in fact immoral slimeballs, just as the common wisdom says. Comparing to used car salesmen does a disservice to the salesmen. Basically, the advice you will get from a lawyer is normally designed to maximize the lawyer's billings, with s
Re:Is this why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there asshole lawyers? Sure. But there are assholes in every profession - why single lawyers out?
I want to again stress that lawyers are mere advocates for their clients. Clients are the ones who file the suits and the general public makes the decisions regarding those suits. More than lawye
Re:Is this why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because nearly all of them are assholes. This is based on experience.
Clients are the ones who file the suits...
Yeah, yeah, that is called "rationalization". It's the lawyers who egg the clients on, and it's the lawyers who have iteratively "improved" the system so that nearly every little dispute ends up at least going to discovery. Usually, things only wind down when one of the parties runs out of
Re:Is this why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because lawyers have actually encouraged the creation of a legal system where advocates must use any dodge or ruse they can cook up under the rationalization that "the other guy's doing it too". Law school seems to encourage this sort of rationalization. I have two cousins and a high school friend who're lawyers and they've basically admitted to this, albeit under the rationalization that "they owe their client the best representation they can provide". One cousin, at least, also admits to the fact that it's rationalizing; but the other, he still proudly tells the following story: as a lawyer in the Army, he defended one soldier who robbed another soldier at gunpoint, which was seen by a third soldier. This third soldier was a key prosecution witness and repeatedly affirmed that yes, the gun was clearly a real gun. So my cousin gets the guy on the stand and, for forty minutes asks him a series of questions, all of which had been asked before, all of which were answered yes. So he's firing off these useless queries, and the guy is getting bored answering "yes...yes...yes...yes..." ad infinitum. So then my cousin slips in the question "is it possible the gun wasn't real?" and the guy says "yes...oh, sorry. I mean 'no'". He then hammered on this totally contrived "witness uncertainity" and got the guy down from "armed robbery" to just "robbery". He tells this story proudly at family gatherings. The fucking scumbag.
That's the problem with lawyers: they're encouraged to believe that the ends justify the means.
Re:Is this why... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a cop out. I have no respect for lawyers who represent known mob members in civil lawsuits designed to protect their mob businesses. There are plenty of lawsuits that are brought in the US which no self respecting lawyer should ever file. In most countries a lawyer who inten
Re:Is this why... (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of these lawyers is to find and exploit legal loopholes to benefit the corporation they work for. A lot of them are scumballs. That's not to say that all lawyers are bad; that's an attitude I don't understand. There are many lawyers committed to things like bringing criminals to justice or fighting for the poor. They just aren't the ones driving brand-new Porsches. Still, many lawyers are willing to take a pay cut to work in the DA's office, because they simply can't stand the "do-it-for-money" attitude of many big law firms and corporate legal departments. If people were willing to look at the entire legal picture, they would find that it's like many others: a few high-profile assholes, and many people who toil away for good causes in relative obscurity.
By the way, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know several. I do not associate with assholes. End of story.
Re:Is this why... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is this why... (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the number of utterly despicable lawsuits that are filed every day. Every one of those lawsuits represents a lawyer who is willing to take advantage of somebody else for his own and his client's financial gain. That MercExchange are assholes for making lawsuits their business plan goes without saying. That lawyers are assholes for screwing over society for their own financial gain has to be said.
Re:Is this why... (Score:2)
Well yes 'blame the judges' and 'blame the legislature' have much to recommend them instead. But all the judges are lawyers, and most of the legislators too...
People filing frivilous [sic] suits wouldn't be a problem if they didn't win so damn often.
How often do you hear : (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyer : Nah, that's just being too litigious, lets wait a few weeks and see what happens.
Client: Hmm, okay.
No, it *is* the lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think you are wrong. It is the lawyers. I am not talking about anyone in particular you know, or any one person, but the profession of lawyers. They created the environment where it is OK to file stupid lawsuits. What do they care, as long as they get paid.
Who do you think makes the laws? Lawyers. You can argue that they a
Re:Is this why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether you think society is too litigious is your opinion. But, to blame that on "lawyers" and not all the assholes who file the frivilous suits is not "insightful" at all.
Laywers run for congress and write the laws we decry. Lawyers become judges and accept these frivolous suits, then make judgements on them we decry. Lawyers accept people who make these frivolous suits as clients and craft the suits in question. Very often the clients are themselves lawyers or the law arm of SomeCompany.
If I come
No. (Score:3, Insightful)
such is the fate of humanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya think? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Whoever holds the patents may require other sites to pay them licensing royalties.
Going out on a limb with that one, huh? Yeah, I can't think of many reasons for a company to buy the patent portfolio of a company whose patents on a key Internet technology were just upheld in court. Besides pulling a SCO, that is.Can we just refer to this kind of manuover as "pulling a SCO" from now on?
Something new for the Devil's DP Dictionary (Score:5, Funny)
To SCO (too skoe), v.t. (1) To attempt to collect royalties or fees for services or the use of properties to which the perpetrator has no rights, or to which the alleged rights are highly dubious. (2) To bully by means of expensive trial lawyers. Also, pulling a SCO (colloquial).
SCO-ed (skoad, skode), (1) past tense and past participle of To SCO (q.v.). (2) adj. Result of the action of a SCO-ing.
Re:Something new for the Devil's DP Dictionary (Score:2, Informative)
Well... we should add "(3) To purchase the intellectual property of another with the sole intention to extort money from others"
Re:It's pulling AN SCO (Score:2, Informative)
An SCO is about an annoying as hearing someone say "Line-ooks"
Re:It's pulling AN SCO (Score:4, Informative)
what is the world coming to? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what is the world coming to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what is the world coming to? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if eBay was already using the technology before the MercExchange filed for the patent, then eBay has every right to continue using the technology and the MercExchange patent will be overturned.
Assuming the patent was just awarded (which is why they are just filing suit now), it usually takes about 2-3 years for
The Solution... (Score:5, Funny)
They could turn themselves into a a portal, or maybe maybe a search engine. Maybe they could sell groceries and have them delivered. I wonder if the CEO has heard of push technology? Push will be the wave of the future! Why surf around for content when it can be delivered via a cute little cartoon caharacter.
I doubt this whole 'auction' thing will ever catch on anyway. None is ever going to buy a piece of junk from an unknown person over this here new fangled internet.
~Z
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, I can't help but wonder if the reason America is so patent crazy lately is to get a leg up on the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure large parts of Europe will be tricked/cajoled/forced into honoring this crap eventually, and I know Iraq will (whether they want to or not).
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Will most surely have patents on software soon, yes, but that will probably exclude "business methods". Algorithms will be patentable, "one click shopping" and "buy it now" will not.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly
There are already several useful amendments already down which would (unlike McCarthy) would place real limits on software patenting.
For an introduction to some of the amendments, see:0 304/index.en.html [ffii.org]
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ipat
There is also a page (still under development) which analyses all the amendments placed so far:0 304/index.en.html [ffii.org]
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/juri
McCarthy cannot stop these amendments being voted on (now expected to be the 16th June), and several have already secured majorities in votes on other, advisory committees.
What I think the IDG article means is that she would not agree to personally recommend any new "compromise amendments" at that meeting, if they do not endorse software patents.
It is notable that while McCarthy talks up the strictness of her proposals, they effectively amount to unlimited software patentability; as well as lower standards, they would impose the EPO's bend-over-backwards flexible approach on the national court systems of countries like the UK, France and Germany, which have all previously been much more reluctant and limited in upholding software patents.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
It'd be like patenting giving stock quotes over the phone.
Looks like someone already did [uspto.gov] !
What is the world coming too ??
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Although you may take it for granted it is a large step in the evolution of auctions in general.
They didn't build jack shit. I wouldn't mind these patents half as much if the patent office still required a 'working model', as it used to, but now it doesn't. Sure, actually BUILDING an Internet based auction system is hard, writing down 'Auctions..on the Internet!' on a pat
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a large step? The only difference is the medium used to transfer information about the auction. If the company had at least invented the medium, they might have a point. All they did is apply pre-existing technology and knowledge. Auctions + database + web form = online auction. To anyone who grew up using computers, and for whom using computers was a daily part of their lives (and for whom a computer isn't some magic black box they refuse to understand) the idea is blatently obvious. A computer is nothing more than a tool, and it's ridiculous that you can patent the application of that tool. It's like patenting driving nails into wood in one hit. I can see it now, Amazon's new one-hit hammering.
You'll say "why didn't you patent it then?". It's not because the idea wouldn't occur to me, but because my mind isn't devious enough to think such a thing patentable.
Electronic securities exchanges (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been going on since the eighties. Maybe not on the Internet, but definitely within private networks of cooperating organisations.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The technology may have existed in the 60's, but the tools weren't widely available or in use. The technology for printing books in mass has existed for hundreds of years. Should the very notion of printing books in mass (rather than a particular implementation of a printing press) be patentable? That's the differece between the invention of a tool and the application of it. They've patented the application of a tool.
Oh, and the quick sort algorythm, along many complex mathmatical ideas, aren't blatently obvious in even hindsight. There's lots of things not obvious in hindsight. Using a pre-existing communication tool for communicating about auctions isn't one of them.
I patent holding auctions in Antarctica! (Score:2)
"Auctions on the Internet" is NOT an invention. It doesn't matter whether it is obvious, or whether anybody had already thought of it, because it is simply taking an existing system and doing it somewhere else. It is absolutely no different then patenting auctions in Idaho, North Greensville, or Antartica should it happen that there haven't been any auctions in those places before.
Note that th
Come out , come out... (Score:2, Funny)
This is ridiculous (Score:2)
P.S. I'm off to patent the use of cars on roadways, so y'all'll have to stop driving when I win! Muhahaha!
How silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How silly (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
The judge's opinion was up for auction, and MercExchange used Buy It Now.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
This is cleary the same t
Hmmm. (Score:2, Funny)
You think they'll have the guts to hold an online auction for the royalties?
I still don't get the patent office (Score:3, Funny)
So:
1. Take existing "thing" everyone does
2. Stick it on the net, and patent it
3. Profit
Take that underpants gnomes!
Hold on, there (Score:2, Funny)
Patent Law and IP (Score:2)
How does this extend to computer programming techniques? Why don't you have to provide a specific algorithm in the patent that can be engineered around?
International Ramifications Re:Patent Law and IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patent Law and IP (Score:2)
This particular patent sounds even more vague, along the lines of, "This patent is for selling things over the internet," probably with little or no mention of how the system would actually work. Basically, I think that for anything technology-related the USPTO is like, "Oh, wait... technical, computer nerd stuff... ok, yeah, here you go."
IPV6 (Score:2)
Re:IPV6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Or bidding via a cell phone instead of a computer.
MercExchange selling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean MercExchange patented By It Now?
If I'm reading this properly, then it just seems that Merc wants to:
1. Obtain all legal rights to online auctioning methods
2. Sell to large Fortune 500 company
3. Profit.
Which makes sense to me. It may be a slimy tactic, but that's business.
Re:MercExchange selling? (Score:2)
I personally think it's a disgusting tactic, but many business do some pretty terrible things to increase profits. Look at clothing companies and Asian sweatshops, or gasoline manufacturers putting MTBE in their product, even though it causes serious water pollution.
It's nice when stories like this get out into the open, because it shines a negative light on the companies that try to pull this kind of stuff.
Re:MercExchange selling? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about other states, but in California the addition of MTBE was mandatory. It's an oxygenating additive intended to reduce air pollution. Now that the dingbats in state gov't realize they've traded a minor air pollution reduction for a major water pollution increase, they're "phasing it out". Not that I like oil companies (the gouging bastards), but the MTBE fiasco is a case of state stupidity.
You can't patent a business process (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't patent a business process (Score:5, Informative)
Courts ruled you could in 1998. Personaly I think the courts in question were smoking crack.
Re:You can't patent a business process (Score:3, Funny)
Be the first kid on your street to collect them all!
Re:You can't patent a business process (Score:2)
Slashdotters, it's all your fault... (Score:3, Funny)
this is obviously the road to riches (Score:3, Funny)
1. Come up with a plan or method that sounds crazy, impractical, or stupid to everyone, and copyright it.
2. Wait 5 or 10 years for someone else to find a way to make millions off it.
3. Sue for copyright infringement.
4. etc...
Re:this is obviously the road to riches (Score:2)
Basically, a patent is for something that you invented, such as a better mousetrap, or a new compression algorithm.
A copyright is for something that you created, like a painting or a screenplay.
If you have trouble, an easy way to remember it is that you get a copyright if you write a new book, and a patent if you invent a new book printing process.
One Better (Score:2)
Maybe this won't be so bad in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
So big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
If these patents continue to hold up, then either EBay will buy them for some stupendous price, or somebody else will buy them and charge EBay studpendous fees. Either way, EBay will continue to do business much as before -- the profits will just get divided slightly different. Big deal!
yes, big deal. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they have one more reason to fail, but it has nothing to do with market forces, freedom or the American Way. You telling me I can't do something obvious because you did it first is bogus. I might like to run a trading site for the fun of it, that's they way ebay started. If it makes lots of money, like ebay did, goodie for me. If not, no big deal. Me paying you money for nothing is not something I care to do. Screw off.
What's Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that was offtopic, since mathematicians have a strange notion of "obvious". Thing is, you can't just say something is "obvious" because it's something we take for granted now. Nowadays, anybody who's st
Re:So big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
surplusauction.com (government surplus)..
the old egghead auction place
yahoo has a moderately useful auction service.
The big problem being finding places where the used items aren't going for more than a new _retail_ item (stupid people)..
Prior Art: Online Addiction! (Score:2)
I guess that's the main reason I don't care too much about the patentability of online auctions...
Then again... EBay prices are inflated because of all those compulsive bidders. Which EBay encourages with "auction notifications" and other stuff that's really redundant in the proxy auctions they conduct. In other words, it's very much like gambling -- people throw away absurd amounts
Re:Prior Art: Online Addiction! (Score:2)
You have to admit thought, this is part of the fun.
A year or so ago I got on ebay for the first time (don't really care for this stuff myself) just to see what the fuss was all about. Registered, did my thing, then watched for a bit.
After seeing people bid like crazy over the silliest shit, I started bidding myself on a few items just to see what would happen. I didn't actually want the items, I just wanted to see how much
Re:Prior Art: Online Addiction! (Score:2)
I don't think you really played any role in bidding up these prices. Last minute bids are pretty much the norm on EBay. People seem to think that it gives them an edge. Nobody seems to understand the difference between submitting a bid in a live auction (which is how traditional auctions work) and specifying a maximum bid in a proxy auction (which is how EBay auctions work). If nobody knows what your
You fail to understand something about this: (Score:2, Interesting)
But people don't. Last minute bids take on an importance that they shouldn't have, because not everyone on ebay bids their maximum amount right away.
If I place a 50 dollar bid on an item that someone else has previously placed a bid on, for 34 dollars, the new price will be 35 dollars, with me as the winner. In theory, if 34 dollars was in fact the th
Wait, how does this work? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wait, how does this work? (Score:2)
Re:Wait, how does this work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on when most of eBay's current corporate officers joined (97-98), it is quite likely that eBay as we currently know it did not exist until probably 1996. Certainly, the Buy-it-now feature that eBay uses, which was ruled as violating at least one of the 3 patents that MercExchange is supposed to own, probably didn't get implemented until at least a year or two after that.
My question is whether these ideas (as detailed in Guaranteed Electronic Markets [amazon.com] - 1999) appeared in print prior to the 1995 application date for the patents in question, given the existence of technologies like AOL, AT&T, and BBSes at the time. To be valid, none of the ideas embodied in the patents filed must have been published. I find that hard to believe - that the concept of haggling over a product with the option of a set price, as extended to a network (for example, over the phone network) did not exist in print prior to 1995. As for software agents, that seems like an obvious extension of existing software agent work prior to 1995. I mean, if you look at the patents in question [com.com], they cite lots of prior art which makes it clear (at least in my mind) that what they were trying to patent was neither novel nor non-obvious to someone skilled in the field in question.
Seriously, there wasn't any literature - even fiction, that featured the idea of auctions over a networked computer system,with software agents?
Reading Test time.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with auctions on the internet or the end of all auctions. It has to do with specific combination of FIXED PRICE SELLING and an INTEGRATED PAYMENT PROCESSOR.
So, IMHO, ebay just needs to remove the fixed price items and it's business as usuall.
"required" ? (Score:3, Funny)
Or they could be sane and let the world continue as it has been, succesfully.
Nothing about auctions according to the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pay close attention to this (block)quote:
That's right... According to the story, the only thing eBay can't do, is the "Buy it now" thing. Auctions go on as usual.
The second article says the same thing, approximately:
Last time I used eBay, there was no "integrated payment processor", and "fixed-price selling" was a new feature... In other words, they were doing well before those features, so I imagine they could do without them if things don't go their way.
I hate patents, but I hate sensationalist
Solution.... end it now (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if that sounds fucking stupid, it's no more stupid then someone claiming they hold the IP to "buy it now".
Near as I'm aware... OBO [or best offer] technology has been in use for as long as I can remember, employed by a vast amount of private citizens when selling things via news paper classifieds.
For those "unfamilar" with OBO technology... basicly a person is selling goods or services and lists an ideal price under the terms that you can buy it for that price, otherwise the selling will accept the highest offer they recieve. What we forget is offers can be higher or lower then the asking price.
For example, I was selling a 486 overdrive some years back. I put it up for sale for like $50 OBO, and I got offers higher then what I posted it for. Basicly I explained to all involved that my best offer was like $75 but a higher offer would be accepted and sold. Needless to say this pissed people off, dispite the fact I was trying to conduct the transation in a fair and honest fasion, and taking the "best" offer.
I would have taken $50 for it, but someone was willing to pay me more money in order to assure that they got it, as well as some assurance that it worked.
Now... I am not the inventor of OBO technology, in fact i'm not sure who is, I would *THINK* it's in the public domain, the fact that it's in common use.
Re:Solution.... end it now (Score:2)
Your OBO idea is really almost identical to eBay's primary purchase system. Everyone makes a bid, and the highest ($75) at the end of the time-frame wins. Sellers can also set a minimum price ($50) und which they will not sell.
It's surreal hearing that. It's amazi
Let's patent methods for conversing online (Score:3, Interesting)
...and sue the shit out of AOL, MSN, Yahoo, any and all operators of IRC servers, VoIP systems, and the like.
The sad things is; if tommorow I saw a headline that someone did just that, I wouldn't be suprised in the least.
Hooray for software patents! :-) (Score:3, Funny)
Then whoever buys the other patents will be forced to cross-license!
Isn't it wonderful to see such innovation and progress being so thoughtfully encouraged by our beloved government? (May they never be overthrown!)
Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.
Re:Hooray for software patents! :-) (Score:2)
The patent clerks might not all understand "online"
Re:Hooray for software patents! :-) (Score:2)
The patent clerks might not all understand "online"
What is claimed:
(1) A method of conducting an auction (2) over the Internet (3) involving the use of (4) a computer and (5) software.
Said software being comprised of (6) bits and/or (7) bytes.
Given the number of real patents granted that look just like this, I'm beginning to think that "patent clerk" should be an elected position.
Legal def of "obvious" is contrary to common usage (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to ask if the legal use of the word "obvious" is different than the common-sense one, but google quickly answered my question [iusmentis.com].
I won't try to summarize the document, as I'm sure I'd butcher the meaning, but short answer: Yes, patent law use of the word "obvious" is somewhat contrary to common sense. In retrospect, I guess this should have been obvious to me. *rimshot*
It is frightening to think that something that any group of 5th graders might come up with in a brainstorming session could qualify as non-obvious, but it sounds like this could be the case.
Said portion of said mind in sad state (Score:2)
When will we start rejecting technical documents that would keep even the best lawyers up into the wee hours?
Why not hire communication capable technical writers as patent examiners instead of the morons that fill those spots?
Blackmail via Patent System = Business Method? (Score:2)
I imagine it would be quite lucrative to license this business method to companies such as MercExchange.
Karma (Score:4, Troll)
I don't want to see anyone win here. I want to see the award reduced massively, and I want to see the person who filed the lawsuit vilified by everyone. I want the injunction to be granted and I want them to fight it out as long as possible while their online auctions taken down. I don't wany Ebay to sell out to another company. I want Ebay to enforce its online auction patents against everyone else doing online auctions and I want all online auction sites taken down.
I want this to be a big fucking huge giant mess that pisses every Internet user in the entire country off and has them asking: Why can't I sell my <worthless crap> anymore? How dare the government tell me I can't do this? You mean a bunch of *lawyers* can just take away the Internet?
It's wishful thinking, but I hope that Ebay goes all the way with this and tries to drag everyone down with them.
Here is the patent (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at the verdict [findlaw.com], independent claims 8, 15, and 26 were found infringed. Here are those claims:
Is this Prior Art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Buyout Auction [google.com]
=Shreak
The answer.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use EBay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
[opinion]which is even sillier[/opinion].
Online Auctions (Score:2)
Re:What could this lead to? (Score:2, Informative)
anyway, the abstract is obviously not the actual patent, just a quick overview of it. what actually was patented was more a way on how to manage a action site. its stuff like having bar codes at the product your storing, and being able get pictures and a description of it. true, still seems completly obvious, but not quite as ba
Re:Slashdotters (Score:2)
Killing American economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Such an incredibly stupid patent would have less chance of surviving Canadian court... not sure about Aus... but it seems that America is slowly poisoning its own economy. I mean, X years from now America will be so bogged down by bad patents and innovation-stifling technology/laws that it will be far behind the rest of the world in a technological sense.
Re:notice to all americans.... (Score:2)
If, that is, you don't apply for immigration, but come here anyway, apply for refugee status when you do get here, and burn your papers so that nobody can tell wether you are a legitimate refugee or not.