I have a Chinese neighbor named Olaf Jorgensen. I asked him about his name.

He said "Well, I was in line at Immigration and they asked the guy ahead of me his name, and he said, Olaf Jorgensen. Then the immigration ofcial asked me my name and I told him Sam Ting."

He went on, "Later, when I presented my papers, my name on my documents and what the bureaucrat wrote down, didn't match." He continued, "I was arrested, for submitting false information." Eventually, in order to avoid incarceration and deportation, he signed a plea agreement. He agreed to legally change his name to Olaf Jorgensen, so the bureaucracy didn't have to admit their part in the problem.

I nd it disquieting that I see parallels between Sam and intellectual property companies. When they try to assert their identity, as owners, they become the problem. So change the paper work to make them wrong. The backyard inventor innovates. He decides to patent his idea and then sells the patent to an IP company rather than try to raise startup capital or sell licenses to interested parties. The inventor deserves a marketplace for his ideas and the buyer is entitled to ownership rights when he buys them. The characterization of "lost wealth" of defendants in patent suits, as a loss to the economy is false. The injured party received the money. This is a zero sum situation. This characterization is similar to someone stealing a car worth $25,000, getting caught, charged with the crime, ned and the car being returned to its rightful owner. The thief is now claiming he lost $25,000 and legal costs.

Homer Simpson has a three letter word for that, it starts with d and ends with h.

Reminds me of the researcher doing research with a grasshopper. He prodded the grasshopper, ordered it to jump and documented the distance. He then removed a front leg, ordered it to jump, prodded it and measured the jump. Another front leg and the same. After he removed a back leg, ordering it to jump, prodded it and the grasshopper no longer jumped, he concluded his research. Study conclusion. Grasshoppers without legs are deaf.

So what is the current status of patent protection?

Most industries must use the court system to defend their patents. However, industries don't usually get industry based expertise, judging their patent claims. When expertise is limited to patent expertise, rather than industry expertise, we get "grasshopper" conclusions in court.

In the television show Kung Fu, there was the following exchange. Master Po: Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet? Young Caine: [looking down and seeing the insect] Old man, how is it that you hear these things? Master Po: Young man, how is it that you do not? Master Po: What do you hear? Caine: I hear the grasshopper.

The courts need "Master" guidance to truly "hear the grasshopper." The thorns have to work for the garden to ourish.

When Caine asked a question about defending, the Master said, "The thorn defends the rose. It harms only those who would steal the blossom from the plant."

Drug companies get expert oversight and therefore don't usually have to incur expensive legal action, to defend their patents. The patent protection of drugs works almost too well. Drug companies are quitting research into antibiotics. Close to $1B to get one approved and resistance makes it obsolete in no time. Natural products cannot be patented. Without patent protection nobody will do clinical trials. No clinical trials, no approval for natural treatments.

Bacteriophage are natural enemies to bacteria, even Superbugs. They only become ineffective, if the bacteria mutates into a new species. A new bacteriophage for a mutated species takes about two weeks to develop. So people die because of a awed system that protects drug companies ahead of people. Patents that try to cast a wide net can backre. Pzer lost its patent protection for Viagra, in Canada, for being too general. (The judge thought they were stretching it when they wanted to have the patent included under hardware.) Now they face "stiff" competition. Samsung displayed interest, thinking their expertise in resizing, seemed a natural t. Google viewed it as a software problem and gured a search of their resources, could help bring better results.

These all point to the Sam Ting, a awed system. Remember, I trolled you so, grasshopper. There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't x it." I suggest, it has a logical corollary, "If it's broke, x it!"