Patent Office Hires Economist To Add Some Actual Evidence To Patent Policy
from the that-would-be-a-start dept
One of our biggest complaints about the way intellectual property policy is handled around the world is how little of it is evidence-based. It almost appears entirely based on the idea that patents and copyrights must be "good" and thus "more" must be "better." Yet there is, at this point, overwhelming evidence of the harm caused by these policies, and there is almost never any attempt to actually address that and reconcile this with the fact that the Constitution is clear that copyrights and patents are only there to help "promote the progress."Given all this, it's interesting to hear, via Jamie Love, that the USPTO has hired economist Stuart Graham to the newly created position of "chief economist." Love notes that Graham's appointment comes with the mandate to compile economic data while doing a true economic analysis of patents for the USPTO. This seems like a good thing. I did a quick search on Graham's previous research and came up with a a listing of some of his research -- and at a first pass, it bodes well. He's done work on how post-grant opposition to patents can improve quality of patents (pdf) and also has done research on patents in the pharmaceutical world, noting that there is a disconnect between patents and actual product development. In fact, that same study found that increased R&D doesn't appear to be an indicator of greater product development at all. This is an important finding -- because plenty of studies have shown that patents may increase R&D in an area, but there's is little evidence (if any) that patents actually increase innovation in any area. A while back, he also looked into the economic evidence on software patents (pdf) and appears to be at least skeptical of the need for software patents -- though, he also admits that a lot more evidence is needed there (and worries that there could be harm in just getting rid of software patents too).
Anyway, he's done a lot of research in this area, and definitely does seem to really be focused on evidence-based policy. Hopefully, having him on staff at the USPTO, and continuing to do this kind of work, while introducing a more evidence-based approach to how patents really impact "progress," the USPTO can start to move away from supporting the faith-based approach of "patents must be good for innovation and progress," towards focusing on policies that actually do lead to greater innovation.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or
I hope I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more important than his qualifications or what he has studied in the past.
...
...
...
How long is his signature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ronald J. McDonald,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.mcdonalds.org - RJM at McUSA.org
Executive Director - www.McInventor.org - RJD at McInvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.McPatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation of McDonalds
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Mayor McCheese
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 555-0194 / (202) 555-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything looks believable. The giveaway was "9 am to 8 pm EST", with your job description
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Hopefully, having him on staff at the USPTO, and continuing to do this kind of work, ... the USPTO can start to move away from supporting the faith-based approach of "patents must be good for innovation and progress," towards focusing on policies that actually do lead to greater innovation"
As usual the Masnick withholds final approval until he knows whether or not the new guy will support the correct religion or not.
If the USPTO had hired Masnick instead they wouldn't have pay for the research and could get the conclusions today - much more efficient !.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evidence-based
How true, especially as it applies to your column.
Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: evidence-based
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: evidence-based
Odd. I have been asking you and Ronald to present *any* evidence that supports you position since you first showed up here. I have presented dozens of studies and research that support mine. To date, you have done nothing but falsely accuse me of shilling for Microsoft (which is funny because I disagree almost 100% with Microsoft's patent policy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]