U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Releases Latest Bogus Study Pushing For More Draconian IP Enforcement
from the details-missing dept
The US Chamber of Commerce (which many people mistakenly think is a government organization -- it's not) has a long history of getting the facts wrong about intellectual property. The folks at the Chamber of Commerce have one basic mission, which is to protect the big businesses that fund it. And what better way to do that then to have the government help give them monopoly rights and then enforce those rights. The latest is that it has released a report which it falsely claims proves that stricter IP enforcement would boost the economy. But that's not what the report actually says. The Chamber of Commerce hired NPD Group to write this report, and you can read the results yourself (pdf). It's significantly weaker than even the most ridiculous studies we've seen in the past.Basically, what the report does is talk about "IP-intensive industries," noting that they have created a lot of jobs. Then it picks twelve random "non-IP-intensive industries" and notes that they spend less on R&D and have lost jobs. That's it. But the conclusions it comes to are not supported by the facts. It takes several logical leaps as follows:
- Because an industry is considered "IP-intensive" it is only successful because of intellectual property laws. That's simply not true. In fact, a study by CCIA showed that exceptions to intellectual property law contribute more to the economy in those industries than the IP law itself. The problem here is falsely assuming that any kind of "IP-intensive industry" is only possible or only successful because of intellectual property. And yet, the actual research suggests that the vast majority of that economic activity, while perhaps in "IP-intensive" industries has little, if anything, to do with intellectual property law or its enforcement.
- Second, it assumes, but does nothing to support, the idea that stronger enforcement increases output in "IP-intensive" industries. In fact, actual research has shown the opposite to be true -- and that in cases where weaker enforcement occurs, output and economic activity increase.
- It assumes that because the industries it picked contributed more jobs to the economy, that's because of intellectual property law. Yet, there's little evidence to support this basic claim. In fact, history has shown that increasing IP strictness often decreases jobs by limiting competition.
- Finally, the report also assumes that IP-intensive industries are on the rise because of intellectual property law, not other massive shifts in the global market. Of course knowledge industries are growing in the US as agricultural and manufacturing jobs move elsewhere. But that's not because of intellectual property law. It's because of the natural progression of the economy. That the "non-IP intensive industries" it randomly chose to include (things like wood, textile, and paper) are on the decline is not due to intellectual property law at all. Claiming it does, as the report implies, is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
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: chamber of commerce, draconian, intellectual property, studies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious troll is obvious
The blue text is what's referred to as a link and it leads one to another website. Go ahead, give a try now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious troll is obvious
... i followed some of the links but in typical masnick standard practice much of it just links to more stories on techdirt, which in turn link to more stories on techdirt ...
Every one of those Techdirt stories has links to where you can find more information. Did you not notice they all have blue text as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obvious troll is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact, it's coming to the point where, while we are an 'IP intensive industry', we are losing money just trying get something out of the door without being sued into oblivion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different interpretation
With that definition in mind (i.e. IP-intensive = High R&D spending, and not placing too much emphasis on "Property" part of IP), I would agree with the author on all 7 numbered points he/she makes in the abstract. But the conclusion seems unsupported ("As such, protecting the intellectual
property derived from innovation is essential to the future of a wide range of American industries").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously...
All the companies just need to make their products a little bit more accesible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and of course if you have a monopoly on a product you are the only one who has any incentive to conduct R&D on it. That's not to say that patents cause more R&D overall. It just means that the patent holder has prevented others from conducting R&D on an idea/design and improving upon it. The net effect is less R&D since who can conduct R&D on something is no monopolized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but the point is that if the government grants you a monopoly on something, you are the only one allowed to sell it, so of course you will hire more people than the non existent competition since the competition has been banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/reports/documents/NDP_IP_Jobs_St udy_Hi_Res.pdf
"Food, beverage, tobacco"
Uhm... How is food a non IP intensive industry first of all. Monsanto owns most of the food supply thanks to patents. and beverages, like Cola and Pepsi, are certainly IP intensive Industries. Or is it that you simply label the industries you arbitrarily consider prosperous to be IP intensive and the ones you consider not to be prosperous to not be IP intensive. and what, you want new innovative ways of smoking a cigarette to get more people to smoke?
"Textiles, apparel, leather"
Ok, lets re - invent leather. Or maybe we can redefine it and call our new definition of leather an invention.
"Wood products"
Seriously? Sand products. Products made of dirt. Products made of ozone. Products made of rocks. Ok, so there isn't innovation there, big deal.
How should we innovate on wood? We have innovated on chairs, now we have electric chairs that massage you, but they're not made of wood. Innovation has ditched wood.
"Paper, printing, support activities"
I know for a fact that copiers are far faster than they were 10 years ago. Not only are they faster, they're far cheaper and they produce far clearer images color than they did 10 years ago. and scanners have improved a lot in the past 10 - 20 years. Stop making things up, there has been PLENTY of innovation in these areas. and don't tell me Konica Minolta, Xerox, etc... don't have patents, trust me, they do.
http://www.xeroxtechnology.com/ip1.nsf/sedan1?readform&unid=640EDE46D9F9E00085256D1E0065D 577
a Non IP industry indeed.
Also, part of the reason printing is going out of business is because paper is becoming obsolete. We all have computers now hence newspapers are dying.
"Plastics, rubber products"
Lets invent a new wheel made out of rubber. Lets call it the triangle wheel. INNOVATION!!!!
As far as plastics, this doesn't make much sense either. New, faster, phones with plastic components are always coming out. New computer monitors, etc... tons of new innovative products have plastic components. and so what if plastic itself becomes obsolete. What do you mean we should innovate on plastic?
"Nonmetallic mineral products"
Carbon? Ozone. Uhm.... oxygen? Chlorine? What do you mean non metallic. Most of the periodic table is metallic.
"Primary metals"
Like what? People create alloyed combinations by mixing metals because mixing metals produces emerging properties. but those primary metals are still used. What, you want us to find a new use for copper? Should I use copper to replace rubber? Make a tire out of copper? and many new and innovative products have primary metals inside them including computer components on faster computers.
"Fabricated metal products"
You want us to fabricate metal? Or you mean molding metal products. Metal is still used for new equipment.
"Machinery"
We have new machinery to build cars with. Heck, most cars now are practically built, to some extent, with computers and machines and to a much lesser extent by hand. That's innovation. What do you mean machinery. Be more specific.
"Electrical equipment, appliances"
There is that new light bulb out that supposedly saves a lot of electricity and allegedly lasts 5 years (though it never really does). Not sure what you mean by electrical equipment. If you mean like saws and whatnot the assembly lines for those have also been improved and automated moreso than the past.
"Electrical equipment, appliances"
This is a good one. Ok, I want to invent a table that barks. There we go.
"Misc non-medical equipment"
Can you be more vague, you're being too specific here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NAICS was developed under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and adopted in 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada , and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia , to allow for a high level of comparability in business statistics among the North American countries.
This official U.S. Government Web site provides the latest information on plans for NAICS revisions, as well as access to various NAICS reference files and tools.
The official 2007 U.S. NAICS Manual, includes definitions for each industry, background information, tables showing changes between 2002 and 2007, and a comprehensive index. The official 2007 U.S. NAICS Manual is available in print and on CD_ROM from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000, or through the NTIS Web site. Previous versions of the NAICS Manual are available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
Do you have anything meaningful to add?
The point is that these people have defined old technologies and said that, "these technologies haven't improved" with little regard for changes in technology and the industry. It's like saying, "A wooden chair with four legs and a seat hasn't improved in 100 years." Well, yes, if you define a chair that way, it hasn't changed. But that neglects the fact that new innovations have been made that don't fall within such definitions. A new chair with the ability to adjust the height, but that may not fall within said definition. Etc... and even within their definitions, improvements have been made, it's jut that the chamber overlooks them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"This official U.S. Government Web site provides the latest information on plans for NAICS revisions"
Yes, revisions are needed. Imagine trying to define today's innovation exclusively using 1000 year old vocabulary. It's difficult trying to use these "standards" to define innovation because as new technology comes out new nomenclature also comes out.
Imagine defining a wheel as, "a circular disk used for transportation" or something. Sure, wheels may not have really improved much, but that's not to say transportation technology hasn't. These definitions are irrelevant at best. Instead of saying, "the wheel hasn't improved" and defining technological improvement as the improvement of a very specific definition of a wheel (ie: a circular disk) a more relevant measure of improvement is transportation speed (ie: on average how much longer/shorter does it take you to get to point X and, on average, how many more people travel to point X compared to before. ie: it may take longer but that maybe due to population increases, not a lack of technological advancement). Communication technology (ie: on average, how much longer does it take to spread the news, on average how much cheaper and easier has it gotten to communicate with someone thousands of miles away). Not simply, "The telephone as a device that people dial phone numbers into and talk to others" (which has seen improvements with cell phones btw, but now no one dials a number a second time, only the first time and then they store them and get them from caller ID's. See, that's improvement. and sure, cell phones aren't made of wood, but what, you want us to make a cell phone out of wood just to show that wood has innovated?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you want people to take out patents in an industry that is shrinking or in one where breakthroughs are being made?
Most(?) patents are not enforced for monopoly but rather are used to get royalties. If they were enforced for monopolies in large quantities, things would be very bad indeed. The golden geese would die. [ref. MAD] Instead, ideally, you want to keep the geese behind bars laying eggs as fast as possible but not so fast that you can't tax them all.
Patents are powerful and broad enough to be able to throttle innovation, slowing it down enough as necessary so as to increase the chances that you will be able to place a patent tax in front of revenues from innovation making its public debut in products. Again, you want products to come out fast, but not so fast that you fail to grab a patent that would tax it.
By definition, you can't use patents to skim money off an industry where little innovation is happening.
"You" is another name for the collective Patent Leeching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most patents sit around and "collect dust" in that they never get implemented in products. Some of them even get implemented only after the patent has expired. Companies often file them for defensive purposes or to give them negotiation leverage. What a waste of resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly, patents will naturally navigate to areas where the most innovation occurs simply because that's where the money is, not because patents somehow stimulate innovation. Innovation occurs in areas where innovation is most necessary and patent trolls simply want to monopolize such innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's like figuring out various software programs to write is easier than discovering for the first time the necessary physical properties that can be used to build a computer to begin with. Once you have a set of principles to work with it's easier to manipulate those principles. Discovering those chemical/physical principles to begin with is more difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
****
Fish' s book also goes into other strategies:
(1) Choose The Market With Patentability In Mind
A thorough goals/resources analysis invariably leads to a number of different markets that can be attacked. The question is, which ones should be chosen and which ones passed up. Here it is useful to map out potential growth of different markets with respect to the degree of patent protection available. In the chart below growth is mapped against patentability. The best markets are those that have both high growth and are open to patentable subject matter. High growth markets where there is little chance of securing broad patent protection will likely be inundated with competition. An example might be the wheelchair market.
****
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause & Effect
Exactly, patents will naturally navigate to areas where the most innovation occurs simply because that's where the money is, not because patents somehow stimulate innovation. Innovation occurs in areas where innovation is most necessary and patent trolls simply want to monopolize such innovations."
Patents do stimulate innovation in two ways.
First, patents teach the invention which allows other inventors to build on the discovery.
Second, patents offer a carrot to subsequent inventors to leapfrog a patent and an incentive to do so to avoid having to pay another.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
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: Cause & Effect
First, patent lawsuits discourage other inventors from building on the discovery and punish those inventors that try.
"Second, patents offer a carrot to subsequent inventors to leapfrog a patent and an incentive to do so to avoid having to pay another."
Second, patents offer a carrot to lawyers to go hunting for any other invention that even remotely resemble said patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NDP not NPD Group
Please correct this error immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuzy Reasoning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuzy Reasoning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuzy Reasoning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuzy Reasoning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]