New Presidential Science And Tech Advisory Council Includes Patent Reformer
from the it's-a-start dept
While plenty of us have been quite concerned about President Obama's decision to appoint a bunch of copyright maximalists to the Justice Department (and the likely appointment of a maximalist to the IP Czar position), there's still the question of where the administration might come down on patent reform. While most of the press reports about President Obama's new Science And Tech Advisory Council have focused on names like Google's Eric Schmidt or Microsoft's Craig Mundie, one interesting appointment is Richard Levin, the President of Yale, and an economist with a long-term interest in patents.While Levin is in the camp of folks who seem to believe the system can be fixed with some tweaks, he definitely recognizes many of the problems with the system, and his earlier research has noted (like similar research) that for new technology markets, patents can often get in the way -- especially in situations (like high tech) where innovation is "cumulative." Levin has pushed hard for increasing the obviousness bar, and making sure that patents actually are new and non-obvious -- something that would significantly help. He also was among the team that wrote A Patent System for the 21st Century. While there's plenty that I disagree with in both the assumptions and conclusions of the book, on the whole, it does show a rather thoughtful analysis. It's nice to see at least someone talking to the President recognizes that "more" isn't always "better" when it comes to intellectual monopolies. Separately, as others have noted, the really big deal here isn't necessarily who's on the board, but how much the new administration is willing to invest in funding for science and tech initiatives...
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: patent reform, patents, president obama, richard levin, science and tech advisory council
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only shit happens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see a pattern
When AD leaves, WH appears
When WH leaves, AD appears
When AD leaves, WH appears
When WH leaves, AD appears
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fraud
please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I see a pattern
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fraud
Limiting Injunctive Relief
The PIA Viewpoint
This provision is really a form of compulsory licensing and may well be classified as a regulatory taking. This provision unconstitutionally undercuts the “exclusive rights of authors and inventors” granted under valid patents by allowing the courts to determine “equity” in considering “fairness of the remedy in light of all the facts and the relevant interest of the parties associated with the invention.” Patent holders see no distinctions, categories, or degrees associated with the concept of infringement.
Statements like above are why reasonable people know that the system needs reform- OMG the horror of allowing the courts to decide what is fair in light of the facts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy reform for renewing patents
An easy reform (and a very small but important step in the right direction) would be to say that anyone who wants to renew a patent must demonstrate that they have actually brought the patented idea to market, or at least licensed it to somebody who has. This way, many of these unimplemented patents would be released at the first renewal period, thus possibly allowing the technologies they describe to be developed by anyone who can find a way to profit off of the idea to the benefit of all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
Each and every high-tech product is a combination of many patented inventions
If you have a patent on one feature you would still need the license for the rest of patented features to even start thinking about manufacturing (not to mention capital costs)
A patent is a license to exclude, not a license to produce:
a negative right
Also, try to licence your patent to a large incumbent manufacturer being a little guy...
I mean without protracted litigation
you have a better chance of landing on the Moon
Remember the rule:
When dealing with large companies there is no free lunch, unless you are the lunch
Stay off drugs, kid, and don't believe everything you read about in mass-media: it's all corporate propaganda including this shitty blog
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
So, what's the problem? Most readers here are also in that group.
Of course.. maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you *like* the system as it is where it is practically impossible to actually make a new product without a team of lawyers and very, very deep pockets.
Also, as I *know* has been asked before. If this blog is so shitty, why are you always here? Do you need a friend?
I'll be your friend. What's your email address-- I'll send you an e-card that will cheer you up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Re:
nice BIG leap there buddy. This assumes no self-correcting measures exist within society. How is YOUR reputation doing lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I see a pattern
When WH leaves, AD appears
Nah, they've overlapped... and I can say pretty certainly that they're different people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You've got it quite mixed up, unfortunately. The fact that it's defined by the state is meaningless. The massive difference is copyability. If you occupy someone else's house, you are occupying it. That's not the case with a piece of content. In that case, you're using a copy.
Quite different.
Copyright and patents are not "property" in the traditional sense by any means. Claiming they're the same will only lead to bad policies.
To prove the point: with tangible property, if I buy it, I'm allowed to do what I want with it, including making a copy and selling the copy.
Are you saying that's ok with content also?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Trademark shouldn't be considered IP. It's consumer protection. Quite different than copyright or patents.
hen you buy your Toyota, it is intelligent that you know you are getting a Toyota rather than a BMW with a Toyota label - which is illegal because we have intellectual property. Without intellectual property, we would never know what we are getting and our world would be in chaos.
Again, that's consumer protection law, not property law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Au contraire. You are not "allowed to do what" you "want with it," and you know that. There are literally thousands of things you cannot do with tangible property. Why? Because the government defines property rights and the limits of those rights, regardless of whether it is a piece of land or a television set, both of which are as tangible as you can get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I look forward to the next copy of your Mustang Cobra. Call me. I will come look at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fraud
please see truereform.piausa.org for a different/opposing view on patent reform
PIAUSA.org? Sounds familiar. Wait a minute! Some guy with a paragraph for a signature kept talking about PIAUSA. If I remember right, it looked like this:
President - PIAUSA.org - XYZ at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - InventorEd.org - XYZ at InvEd.org
Washington, DC
I wonder what happened to them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of "property," as the word is not confined to physical objects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a product of the mind that does not exist in physical form, and it gives the trademark owner a right to exclude others from using the same trademark. How is that not considered property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
JJ apparently doesn't know much about patent law. Patents cannot be renewed; they last for 20 years from the date of filing and then expire. This whole paragraph is nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it has almost no similarities to property. Trademark is NOT designed as a right to exclude. It's designed as a commerce rule to avoid confusion. Others are free to use it in non-confusing, non-diluting ways. It's nothing like property, and nothing like patents/copyright. It's not even based on the same part of the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a trademark/trade dress issue, (again, consumer protection), not a copyright/patent issue.
And, in fact, we recently saw a situation where it's becoming popular for some to buy fake Ferarris, knowing that they're fake.
I see nothing wrong with that scenario, because no one is harmed. Those who buy the cars know they're not real, and are happy with that. So there should be no issues in that situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, you're only thinking of "property" as only pertaining to physical objects. Classifying a thing as "property" does not require it to be tangible or even scarce. All that's required is the ability exert a right against it, like the right to exclude or use.
Stocks and bonds are property. Shares in a company are property. A bank account is property. Why? Because someone can own rights that are tied to those things, such as the right to use or exclude. In contrast, air is not property, and neither is water in a lake or an ocean, even though they are tangible. Why? Because that cannot be appropriated: everyone may enjoy them, but no one can exclusively own them.
When someone owns a trademark, he retains a right regarding that trademark. Specifically, that right is the right to exclude others from using that mark or a similar mark in the same or similar trade. As qualified as that right is, it is a right nonetheless, and it is what makes a trademark fall into the classification of property, specifically intellectual property.
For the purposes of classifying trademarks as property, it does not matter whether trademark law originates from the Commerce Clause, the Patent and Copyright Clause, or even state law, and it also does not matter what the reasoning behind trademark law is. Trademarks are still classified as property because they can be owned and exerted against others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's applied research that's sexy and gets the funding. It's applied research that leads to patents.
But It's basic research that gets things done. And the people who do basic research get paid very little, but they're the heroes of the Physics community and their names live on forever.
Remember, Albert Einstein did basic research.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I see a pattern
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:Re:
I think there is a lot of history regarding "self-correcting measures." Indeed, I think that many of the laws we have today are the "self-correcting" measures implemented because "self-correcting measures" tend to include things like price fixing, trusts, graft and just about every other vice we can imagine, and more.
How is YOUR reputation doing lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your statement may be correct from a philosophical point-of-view, but in reality trademark is designed as a right to exclude.
For example, Coca Cola is such a well-known trademark that essentially ALL use is excluded (other than by the Coca Cola Company, of course). If you think I am wrong, then show me a single example of a product called Coca Cola that is not affiliated with the Coca Cola Company. For that matter, I wonder whether there are any products called Coke that are not affiliated with the Coca Cola company. We cannot count the material used in steelmaking (lower case c). That material existed long before Coca Cola and is the name of a type of material rather than a product from a specific company.
In any event, Coca Cola has the right to EXCLUDE anyone from use the Coca Cola name in a huge array of areas, and they do it all the time. Their reputation does not seem to have suffered as a result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect, though I do not know, that what is under the hood will not perform like a real Mustang, which means the copy is only the body. I was speaking of a true copy, rather than a small fraction of a copy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why dont you buy a real car ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. The point is if you COULD make a true copy, then you would be able to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I'm not. I'm thinking of property as being property.
Trademark is not property. It's a consumer protection/brand protection statute that is not property in any way, shape or form. The differences between it and property are legion.
Comparing the two is silly. The rights associated with real property and trademark may overlap in some ways, but are completely different in other ways. Lumping them together only confuses people and does nothing to further the discussion and much to muddle the discussion.
When someone owns a trademark, he retains a right regarding that trademark. Specifically, that right is the right to exclude others from using that mark or a similar mark in the same or similar trade.
For a single purpose: to prevent consumer confusion (and, more recently, though it's disputed, to prevent dilution). That's ENTIRELY different than regular property, which grants those rights not for a specific purpose at all.
s qualified as that right is, it is a right nonetheless, and it is what makes a trademark fall into the classification of property, specifically intellectual property.
Not at all. ANd you do realize that trademark being lumped in as "IP" with patents and copyright is a very recent phenomenon, right? When trademark first came around, no one even thought of them as being remotely similar to copyright and patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trademark is not property. It's a consumer protection/brand protection statute that is not property in any way, shape or form. The differences between it and property are legion.
Comparing the two is silly. The rights associated with real property and trademark may overlap in some ways, but are completely different in other ways. Lumping them together only confuses people and does nothing to further the discussion and much to muddle the discussion.
So what? So what if trademarks are different from real or personal property? A share of preferred stock is also quite different from real and personal property, but that does not change it's identity as property. Someone can own it, buy it, and sell it. One can do the same thing with a trademark registration. Obviously different types of property convey different types of rights, but the quality of the right does not change its title as property.
Your concern about confusing people in a discussion is unavailing. You may not want to put trademarks under the heading of "Property" in order to not confuse people, but you're then spreading misinformation that trademarks are not property, which would also confuse people. If you want to draw a distinction between trademarks and personalty or realty, then do so by calling those items by their appropriate names. Grouping together personalty and realty as "property" or "regular property" and then treating trademarks like they're something other than "property" is misleading and wrong.
For a single purpose: to prevent consumer confusion (and, more recently, though it's disputed, to prevent dilution). That's ENTIRELY different than regular property, which grants those rights not for a specific purpose at all.
So what? Why does that matter when we're talking about whether something should be classified as property or not? Can you buy, sell and own a trademark? Yes, you can. Can you use it? Yes, you can. Can you exclude someone else from using it? In limited circumstances, but yes, you can. Can you name something else that has those same qualities and is not regarded as property? I doubt you can.
Not at all. ANd you do realize that trademark being lumped in as "IP" with patents and copyright is a very recent phenomenon, right? When trademark first came around, no one even thought of them as being remotely similar to copyright and patents.
And now that we are more educated, we see the similarities more clearly, so clearly that we are willing to call trademarks intellectual property. Why is that so hard to understand?
The dilution statute is a bunch of cockamamie nonsense, but we can save that for a different day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]