Is Cost Accounting To Blame For Patent Hoarding?
from the one-possibility dept
Michael F. Martin is a lawyer/investor who is always good for some interesting debates in the comments here on the question of patents. He's a supporter of the patent system, with some fixes. Suffice it to say that he and I disagree on an awful lot, though I appreciate his willingness to try to really dig into the questions being discussed and to dig through all sorts of ideas and research. It's just that we usually come to almost the exactly opposite conclusions.I'm not sure where I come down on his latest thought piece, suggesting that part of the reason why companies have been hoarding so many patents is because of cost accounting. His assertion is that cost accounting treats patents as an asset, rather than as equity. That causes companies to overvalue the patent itself, rather than the investment and effort that need to go into making a useful, marketable product. His feeling is that as companies move away from static cost accounting, the problems related to patent hoarding will hopefully decrease.
It's an interesting theory that I have not heard of before. I agree that cost accounting creates all sorts of problems with accurately valuing company assets. I also agree that companies overvalue patents compared to the effort of actually bringing a product to market. However, it's not clear that it's cost accounting that's leading to the problem. He presents no evidence to show that the two things are connected. It seems that there's a much more straightforward explanation: numerous high publicity patent lawsuits with extreme awards combined with loosening of the restrictions on what can be patented has created a mad rush for patents. And, to make matters worse, companies feel they need to build up a stockpile of their own patents to fend off others with their own patent portfolios. The cost accounting angle is an interesting one, but it seems like a stretch to think the impact is that big compared to those other factors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cost accounting, patent hoarding, patents, stockpiling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cost Accounting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cost Accounting
On the bright side for them, IBM didn't have a patent on a strategy to use patents as assets instead of equity....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks
You're right to point out that there isn't much evidence for this yet. I'm working on pulling that evidence together now. The biggest problem with collecting it is that you need to have access to the journal entries at lots of high-technology companies to be able to do a study. According to my theory, their financial statements don't tell you what you need to know. Naturally, very few high-tech companies are willing to open up their books to outsiders for inspection.
The bottom line is that the cost and comparables methods of valuing IP are fundamentally flawed, and that the revenue based valuation methodologies used now are fine when it's an entirely new product or process, but that we need a revenue-based valuation methodology that looks at changes in the frequency of turnover in inventory, cash, &c. in order to see how most inventions add value within the firm. Most inventions just make incremental improvements to existing products or processes, and these improvements are difficult to measure without looking at a time-series for the various balance sheet accounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I cant see it
If however you wanted to talk about the current valuation practice as being a barrier to meaningful change of the system, then sure. Any meaningful reform is likely to result in some serious write downs in the book value of a lot of patents and no doubt vested interests will apply some serious money to lobbying to preserve the status quo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your patent and we’re not going to pay.
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inflatable Assets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Stv, you're amazing. Did you note the part where I point out that it's probably *not* a cost accounting issue. Before trashing me, you might want to make sure you read what I wrote.
It’s real simple. If you want to spur innovation, you reward inventors with patents.
Except for all the evidence that suggests that's not true. Why? Because invention is not the key factor in innovation. It is one part of it, but in locking up that invention it actually makes real innovation harder -- because innovation is a procss of trail and error until someone figures out what the market really wants. When you limit that process to only the inventor, you get less innovation.
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.
Stv, I've also pointed this out to you as well, but you seem to ignore it: this has nothing to do with small inventors. Big companies (the ones you falsely accuse me of "shilling for") are bigger abusers of the legal system than the small entities in many cases -- and I'm equally against that. I don't like anything that blocks innovation.
I've pointed all this out to you before, but you don't respond. Instead, you show up, make some totally unsubstantiated claims about me shilling followed by a false assessment of the situation as being about big companies using inventions without consent.
Each time you do that without responding to the points I raise, the lower and lower your credibility sinks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stv is a bot
This bot posts the same comments every time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: stv is a bot
stv doesn't want to waste his valuable time writing new comments for this shitty blog
There are other patent-related blogs with more educated readership (like "Patently O") for posting thoughtful comments on the subject
This blog is for shitting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: stv is a bot
stv doesn't actually have anything intelligent to say, which is why all his posts are copy & paste.
Of course, with your complete inability to actually provide any reasoning or rationale beyond "I'm right, you're wrong", it's hardly surprising to see you defending someone who emulates the same sophomoric behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
megaupoad downloading
Find al the necessary information there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
megaupoad downloading
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Accounting
http://www.avicennaaccounting.com/
you can get more information about accounting from this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]