Tuesday, 13 November 2007

Amazing inventions

Every so often we need to sit back and praise someone who has brought about a great advance in human affairs. Take a bow Kent Hodgson, a young Auckland inventor who has produced a device he calls a Huski that turns your warm beer into a cold drink within seconds.

Sang Tom Waits: "Warm beer and cold women, I just don't fit it in." Obviously what Tom needs is a Huski.

Mr Hodgson is my hero.


  1. OK how about this one: Human organs can now be constructed using an inkjet printer!!!

  2. I sure hope he has a solid gold patent on that thing. It'll make him millions if he has.

  3. Ahhhh patents and the little inventor.

    What happens when you file a patent and I infringe it?

    You have to take me to court to defend your patent. And my attorney is going to file to have your patent struck out as invalid (for all sorts of resaons). He is going to attack you and your patent for years. YOu better have really deep pockets.

    You see, no matter what you might think, what your patent claims is not what I am manufacturing in China. My stuff is not covered by your claims, I claim. It is different and falls outside the scope of claim. Also, what your patent claims, my company already knew about (so your patent is invalid for reasons of prior art). No matter what your patent may claim, I claim it is obvious (hence your patent lacks inventiveness) and should never have been granted. And you patent is not enabled. And it does not teach. Etc, etc, etc,.

    So unless you have millions of dollars to litigate, the grant of a patent is not going to help you in the slightest.


  4. LGM: Are you arguing that present law doesn't deliver justice with respect to an inventors' patents? Or that it shouldn't?

  5. PC

    I'm not arguing. I'm explaining what occurs.

    Patents are faulty in practice because the idea is faulty in principle.

    Who says patents have anything to do with the provision of justice anyway?


  6. PC

    Re patents and intellectual property.

    Have you read Dr S Kinsella's papers on the topic? He writes for the Von Mises Institute. An interesting man who has qualifications in engineering, law and IP, he writes frequently about patents, copyright, trade mark etc. Some while ago he wrote a paper "Against Intellectual Property" where he excoriates IP as not being property at all. He makes the case that IP is one of those ideas relying on false rights...

    Having practiced in IP for some 16 years now (and very comfortable in my view of it) I was shocked by his argument. I wrote to him and he was kind enough to recommend further readings to consider. The arguments he presents are not trivial and can't be immediately dismissed. I've since become very sympathetic to his point of view. IP is not the same as property; likely it isn't property.



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.