The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
from the wow dept
A whole bunch of you are sending in one of the first mainstream articles I've seen on patents that gets almost (but not quite) everything right. The Economist has a wonderful piece that clearly explains why patents are hindering, rather than helping innovation. It notes the difference between innovation and invention -- and how patents quite often can hinder the former. It discusses how patent thickets get in the way of innovation, and the focus on using patents to force through massive cross-licensing deals simply adds transaction costs and reduces efficiency in the market. The solution to all of this put forth by the Economist is mostly the same thing we've been suggesting for years: bring back a real test for "obviousness" that gets rid of obvious patents -- though, it falls short in not suggesting an independent invention test for obviousness. The only other areas where I'd say the Economist article falls short is (1) simply assuming that patents do work in pharma and biotech -- when there's evidence that's not true, (2) assuming that a ruling in Bilski alone might clear up the obviousness issue and, finally, (3) its parting suggestion that programmers focus on copyright monopolies, rather than patents. Still, it's about as good a piece on this subject as you might expect to see in such a mainstream publication.
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: economist, innovation, invention, obviousness, patent system, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Use it or lose it
I suppose now that I think about it more that there would have to be some sort of provision where licensing the patent to a company who is producing a product using it would count. So you might very well see an upswing of patent trolls filing lawsuits and such to force a licensing settlement. Still, though, I think that it might help enough to be a net plus since it would get rid of a lot of the thickets that make it so hard to do anything truly innovative, especially if it were combined with an independent invention defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use it or lose it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use it or lose it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use it or lose it
Since they would be suing over the same feature on an item (I am mainly thinking tech here, and have not thought everything out for areas this would affect), they would have to sue the other company that did the licensing.
Off the top of my head I think this would greatly reduce patent thicket problems for innovators, and make companies think twice about filing for patents that cover the same thing in differently vague terms.
I am sure this would cause other problems though. Just didn't take the time to think them through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even with an independent invention defense, it would still be a fact question for the jury to determine whether the accused patent infringer invented the process/method/whatever independently. Thus there would still likely be a long drawn out and costly trial which the patent holder would use to force a settlement.
The standard has to be much higher and more strict in order to obtain a patent in the first place. Throwing out a bunch of random patents does not magically create innovation anymore than randomly banging keys on a keyboard will magically create music worth listening to.
But the patent office makes good money with its "you file it and we'll grant it" patent process and all of those patent attorneys make a great living fighting over our vague patent laws, so I won't hold my breath awaiting any changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At any rate, the problem is in litigation fees and disgusting "damage" awards. Couple that with default judgments and you see how much power were dealing with here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, I'm having so much fun
Like most IP lawyers, I enjoy jamming to "Lucky" Lene Lovich songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding part 3
I know there are some coders who think the world of themselves and that they are better than others, but we don't like them for obvious reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding part 3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY I KNOW
BE LAZY TO DAY
SUPPORT THE AMERICAN way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he shows up drunk again, you could set up a PPV event Mike :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gee, Ronald, I ask you for evidence, and all I get is more insults.
Surely you can provide a single shred of evidence to support your position. Can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E CON in the Mist
I understand that this column seeks the approval of those whose main claim to accuracy is their English accent.
There is a very good reason why Japan leads England in both invention and innovation. It certainly helps that they have neither Economists nor Techdirt to misguide and misinform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: E CON in the Mist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: E CON in the Mist
Actually, most of what they wrote has numerous studies and evidence backing it up. We've presented much of that here.
If you have evidence to the contrary, would you care to share it? Thanks!
I understand that this column seeks the approval of those whose main claim to accuracy is their English accent.
Ah, I see. When you don't have any evidence or facts on your side, resort to insults.
There is a very good reason why Japan leads England in both invention and innovation. It certainly helps that they have neither Economists nor Techdirt to misguide and misinform.
Odd. Both the Economist and Techdirt are available in Japan. Perhaps you are not familiar with how this internet works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: E CON in the Mist
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: E CON in the Mist
Hmm. What "tactics" are those? I mean, surely, if you wanted to convince people that I am so wrong, it only makes sense to present some evidence so people can see it, right? And yet, you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fraud
The only thing you see are dollar signs from the thieves that pay you to distort the truth or rewrite it.
Patent reform is a fraud on America.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fraud
Oh, you disagree with that last part? I see, but too bad, because my 100% imaginary evidence is better than your 100% imaginary evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fraud
Heh. You stop by here on every patent post and make the same false and defamatory claim. You never respond to questions. No one pays me to distort the truth. The posts here are of my own free will and I can back up all of the statements with evidence.
I recognize that you are pals with Ronald, but that's no excuse for lying.
If you have any evidence to back up your statement, please step forward and speak up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fraud
Mike, your position on these issues is in left field, totally unsupportable, so why you you continue to discredit yourself?
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fraud
Again, cure me of my ignorance. Present the evidence. I've been asking you for *years* to do so, and you do not. If I'm ignoring important evidence, I'd surely like to know about it. Please present it.
Mike, your position on these issues is in left field, totally unsupportable, so why you you continue to discredit yourself?
Again, I can present dozens of credible studies, including multiple ones done by Nobel Prize winners, that do, in fact, support what I talk about.
I'm still waiting for you to present your evidence.
Given how much evidence is on my side, I'm a bit confused, Ronald, as to why you would claim my position is "in left field, totally unsupportable." It's neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fraud
Perhaps patent reform isnt the fraud you are looking for. So what are You being paid to distort the truth? Or is this (gasp) your secret identity, Ronny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fraud
I am listed in many of the Marquees Who's Who publications. This is the real who's who, not one where you can purchase listings. It is there in black and white and can be found in most public libraries. By the Mike, have any of your accomplishments led to your being listed in Marquees Who's Who?
Returning to the invention promotion problem, these companies run ads on TV and many call people with issued patents. They claim that they can market inventions when in fact all they market are themselves. They are fleecing aspiring inventors for typically $10,000 to $50,000. The industry is raking in in excess of $500 million a year.
InventorEd investigates these companies, when we have enough evidence we publish it in our Caution section at www.InventorEd.org/caution/.
We compile data and supply it to media and law enforcement. Companies which we have targeted have been subjected to the long arm of the law. These cases run on for years, one more than a decade but we have played a role in one fraudster being assessed $26 million, another being assessed $60 million and being shut down and there are other cases including ones which will hopefully lead to criminal convictions.
I am sure that you can understand why these crooks do not like InventorEd or those of us who run it and the affiliated organizations. I think that who dislikes us may be a better measure of our accomplishments then who likes us :)
Regarding Mike and his evidence, citing work of those who are sucking at big corporate tits is not proof. Mike's proof rates right next to claims that tobacco is safe.
All the rationalizations in the world do not make ripping off or advocating ripping off inventors acceptable. Patent property rights are the law of the land and that is not going to change. Obey the law and we can all get along. Steal from us and we will adjust attitudes.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fraud tastes like cod
I never realized that your such an highly intelligent person. I really appreciate how you "add" something to the conversation. Your critical thinking skills show your highly educated background.
Thanks for providing your affiliations, it really helps to bolster your argument about people "smoking stuff".
You should title your posts the "J' Riley factor" and offer your incredible insight that is free from Mike's "Spin-ZONE".
Alright, thanks again Ronald McDonald! I always appreciate a good clown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fraud tastes like cod
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fraud tastes like cod
Let me speak for all of Techdirt and say we all appreciate you exposing yourself as the stooge you are.
Thanks again Ronald McDonald, your clown skills are unsurpassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fraud
Hmm. Looking through the research, I'm having trouble finding any that are being funded by big companies. Perhaps you can help out and point out which ones are? Thanks!
Anyway, if those studies are so bogus, surely you can point me to the counter evidence from legitimate peer reviewed sources. Right? Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with the patent system is that enough has not been done to educate those who steal others intellectual property. But we are working on it.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is a shill
everybody and his brother knows that Mike is a paid shill for the Coalition for Patent Piracy
No big secret there, nothing to argue about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a shill
Huh. Well, I didn't know that. And if I actually am a paid shill for this coalition, why do I disagree 100% with their stance on patent reform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
How is it that you manage to focus almost exclusively on drivel commissioned by large corporate thieves, consistently push their agenda of socializing inventors property and then whine when someone calls you on it. How do you focus on the 1% fringe anti-patent stuff and miss all the stuff which tells the truth?
Our investment in our inventions is just important to us and in most cases much more important then your investment in building TechDIRT. I am willing to be that if some asset thief managed to get inside your organization and oust you that you would be just as pissed off as an inventor who is being defrauded of their property.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
Well, I keep asking you to present that stuff that "tells the truth." I've been asking you for years. And you still haven't given any.
Our investment in our inventions is just important to us and in most cases much more important then your investment in building TechDIRT. I am willing to be that if some asset thief managed to get inside your organization and oust you that you would be just as pissed off as an inventor who is being defrauded of their property.
Again, Ronald, this was already explained to you. Everything on Techdirt is public domain. We have focused on building a business model based on things that *cannot* be taken or copied. That you and your friends have chosen bad business models is really your own fault, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
Except the domain name techdirt.com itself
How come if public wants to use that domain name they can;t because Mike Masnick reserved it for himself as his "property" ?
Give up techdirt.com domain name, Mikey, or you don't have any fucking moral right to talk about taking inventor's property for public good
Now I expect some gibberish about scarce and non-scarce goodies and other BS like that
Tell it to your grandma, Mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
Angry dude, this has been explained to you before, so I don't quite understand the reasoning in bringing it up again, other than to suggest that you are completely clueless about basic concepts.
Any domain name is, automatically, a scarce good, because it can only point to a single site. You can't "public domain" something that is scarce. And, yes, a domain name is property because of that inherent scarcity.
We have no problem at all with property rights on scarce goods.
The problem only comes in when people try to put fences on ideas.
Give up techdirt.com domain name, Mikey, or you don't have any fucking moral right to talk about taking inventor's property for public good
Sure we do. Just because you can't understand basic economics...
Now I expect some gibberish about scarce and non-scarce goodies and other BS like that
Tell it to your grandma, Mikey
Thanks. My grandmother just passed away.
But at least she was smart enough to understand basic economics. I would suggest that you find an econ professor and ask him about the "gibberish" about scarce and non-scarce goods. It might help you out a bit. Just like we tried to do, and instead you insult my dead grandmother?
You are a sick, sick individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
How was I supposed to know that she just passed away ?
And NO, I'm not sick
Quite normal indeed, a middle-class middle-aged naturalized American citizen in good health, with wifie, kids, house etc and respect from coworkers
It just makes me furuious when someone like you who never made a single creative contribution to society wants to socialize contributions made by other more creative folks who spend countless unpaid hours laboring in their home offices or garages on the next big thing
You are un-American, Mikey
I suggest you move to China
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compromize
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uniqueness Test
Each patent idea, the patent application reduced to a specification or problem definition, should be submitted to a panel of experts in that field. If they come up with the same basic design as a solution, it fails the uniqueness and/or obviousness test and is not approved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]