Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?

from the not-at-all dept

I know a fair number of patent lawyers and copyright lawyers who are quite skeptical of what's become of patent and copyright law -- and who readily admit that the law has gone way beyond what is reasonable or what the law was designed to do (i.e., "promote the progress..."). And yet there are some in the patent or copyright legal business who somehow seem to think that it's traitorous for a patent or copyright lawyer to ever dare question the idea that patents and copyrights work. I had a patent lawyer argue with me the other day that of course patents encourage innovation, because the Constitution says they do. This sort of logical blunder blows my mind. How can otherwise intelligent people assign such backwards logic to things? Do these same people also believe that when Congress passes any law, it automatically achieves its goals?

I have a good friend, who has recently made it through law school. Since he spent over a decade as a computer scientist, the law firm he went to work for made sure he did a rotation in the patent group (but of course). He was telling him how sick the experience made him feel. He said the stuff he was working on was disgusting. Helping companies patent blatantly obvious ideas, and using those patents to sue other companies who were innovating. Even worse, he said that many of the partners in the group seemed gleeful at how they were abusing the system, solely because of the amount of money such projects bring in. None of them bothered to consider that the overall impact of what they were doing wasn't "promoting the progress" but was harmful to society as a whole.

So, I can understand how lawyers can be on both sides of the equation (though, it says something to me about how they view the world). And, yet, there are still some IP attorneys who seem to think that it's somehow ridiculous that a patent attorney could ever find patents a net negative on society (leaving aside the many, many recent studies done by lawyers who have shown exactly that). Stephen Kinsella, a patent attorney who is against patents has responded to one such claim by a patent attorney, explaining why of course a patent attorney can disagree with the patent system, and still do his job. He notes plenty of patent attorneys who have become skeptical of the patent system.

But what's really stunning are the claims of the patent lawyer, Gene Quinn, who prompted Kinsella's claim. He was actually writing in response to a Techdirt post, where he makes numerous odd claims that don't make much sense. He assumes that it's factual that patents must promote innovation based on "the basic laws of economics." This makes me wonder which laws of economics Quinn is talking about, seeing as the laws of economics I know say that monopolies almost always lead to suboptimal societal benefit. He claims that "all the evidence" say that patents increase innovation. Except that's not true at all. We can start listing off all the studies that have shown the contrary, but I've yet to see one that actually supports Quinn's position. In response to that, Quinn amazingly claims that the studies that prove him wrong don't matter:

Would you please stop reading studies and look at history! Studies are done by academics with an agenda, are based on thought experiments, do not take into consideration important factors and are preconceived in order to come out with a particular answer.

That's a neat trick to dismiss the actual evidence (after insisting all the evidence was on his side), but it's flat-out, almost 100% wrong. And provably so. Because most of the studies I was talking about aren't "based on thought experiments" but are "looking at history." And, among those "biased academics" are at least two Nobel prize winning economists (Maskin and Stiglitz) and someone who was a very successful entrepreneur before moving to academia (Bessen). Besides, most of the academic studies that Quinn dismisses as irrelevant was peer reviewed. There are problems with peer review, of course, but to claim that these are far out ideas, while insisting that "the basic laws of economics" supports patents is simply not supported.

There are plenty of reasons why people might believe patents increase innovation -- but they're the same theories of the mercantilists in the 18th century, who believed that monopolies on other products spurred more development in those businesses. That theory was debunked and is considered laughable by pretty much any economist today. And yet, when it comes to patents, why do people automatically reject what economists realized two hundred years ago? Monopolies may temporarily benefit the monopolist, but at the expense of society as a whole. And, if Quinn wants to look at history, let's take a look at people who did actually look at the history, from Eric Schiff (showing rapid innovation and industrialization of the Netherlands and Switzerland without the use of patents) to Petra Moser (showing no less innovation in comparable countries with no patent laws to those with patent laws) to Lerner's work (comparing various countries before and after they changed patent systems, showing that stronger patent laws do not lead to greater innovation) to Qian's research (patent system changes across countries in the pharma industry, showing stronger patent laws did not lead to greater innovation, and, in fact, that weakening IP enforcement often led companies to become more innovative to stand out from the competition) and onward (there are a lot more where that came from). Hell, even the World Intellectual Property Organization (which usually is pretty damn supportive of IP) has noted that there's been no real evidence that IP protection leads to any economic payoff.

Quinn says to ignore the studies and look at the history, but the history says exactly what he claims it doesn't.

Those who insist that patents must lead to innovation fallback on a few, rather basic, logical fallacies. They point out that countries with strong patent laws tend to see much greater innovation. This is what Quinn means by "look at the history." But they are mixing up correlation with causation -- not recognizing that the stronger patent laws almost always post-date a period of much greater innovation, and then the patent system gets strengthened, not to promote more innovation, but to limit competition from those who innovated in the past (and, in fact, research by Park and Gigante found evidence of this very thing in looking at "history"). Or, they claim that since we still see some innovation, then clearly patents don't hold innovation back. But compared to what? The argument we're making has never been that patents stop all innovation cold. Of course innovation still occurs. But the question is at what rate? As we've seen in countries without patents or with much weaker patent systems, you tend to have much greater competition among smaller, more nimble firms. Since competition is a great driver of innovation, it's no surprise that there would still be great innovation in such societies. Separately, the fact that there may be fewer major innovations coming from societies with weaker patent laws today is again, not evidence that patents work. There are numerous factors that influence innovation -- and picking a country with poor infrastructure or widespread poverty, isn't exactly an apples to apples match with someplace like the US.

But just thinking logically, you can realize why the argument that, without patents, there would be no innovation, is provably false. When it's easy to copy someone copying losing all value by itself. Just being a copycat is pretty useless, because anyone else can do it. So, the real value is not in copying, but in leapfrogging. And that leapfrogging is (*gasp*) innovation. It's only in a world with patents where copying has value. That's because those patents create monopoly rents -- and thus, there's an artificial profit bubble, that others want access to. That creates a societal net loss.

Given all of this, it makes plenty of sense why patent attorneys could certainly recognize the harm that patents can cause. In fact, I would think such individuals are a lot more trustworthy on patent issues, since you know their position is not influenced by the fact that they make money off of the system. So, no, there's nothing odd about patent attorneys who find problems with the patent system. They're people who recognize the simple fact that just because a system is set up to do one thing, it doesn't mean that it automatically occurs. They're people who recognize that innovation is not synonymous with patents, and are able to take a step back and say what is truly best for innovation.

Filed Under: gene quinn, innovation, patent attorneys, patents, research

More Research On The Importance Of Connecting With Fans

from the truly-connect,-and-the-revenue-follows dept

Dave Carter writes in to share some recent research that he was involved in, examining how well different promotions strategies worked for 99 different independent musicians in Australia. All the typical caveats apply -- including that this was just limited to Australian artists, and plenty more research needs to be done to show a causal relationship -- but the initial results certainly support the view that many of us have been espousing: that bands who really connect with their fans get a real boost in actual revenue. And, really connecting means actually doing some work -- not just tossing up a MySpace page. Some summaries of the findings:

• The highest proportional returns to artists corresponded with the use of multiple inter-linked sites, including a dedicated website or blog as well the use of mailing lists and the provision of free content. Of the artists studied, few had developed this type of integrated or strategic web presence and many of the artists studied could be making more effective use of the tools available to them.
• When viewed in isolation, the use of popular web services such as Myspace, Facebook and YouTube to promote an artists music did not correspond to a dramatic increase in artist earnings. In fact, as a whole, users of Myspace or Triple J's popular Unearthed website actually received proportionally lower returns than the median. However higher levels of fan or audience engagement -- for example in the form of Blog coverage, YouTube views, Facebook fans or Myspace friends -- tended to correspond to proportionally higher artist earnings inclusive of services whose users tended receive lower returns overall.
• Finally, the level to which higher earnings corresponded to online activity appears relative to artists off-line profile. That is, artists who perform and tour regularly, receive radio airplay and off-line press and media coverage tend to receive significantly higher returns and appear more likely to benefit from online promotional activities.

Most of this should be pretty obvious -- the more you connect with fans, and the more you do to get heard, the better off you're likely to be -- but it's amazing that so many musicians still don't bother with putting in the necessary effort.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, independent musicians, research

Open Science And Closed Science: Aren't Papers Supposed To Be A Part Of The Conversation?

from the rather-than-a-brick-wall dept

It's no secret that we've got some serious problems with the way the old school scientific journals work -- basically locking up scientific research rather than really living up to their mandate to spread scientific knowledge. Stephen alerts us to a separate issue with traditional journal publications: how they handle the followup discussion. There's a great blog post at Scienceblogs, that compares two separate journal articles where readers felt that the results were falsified in some way (despite being peer reviewed). In one, the scientist had to go to hell and back just to get the editors publish a comment questioning the original article. In the second, even though the article was published in a journal, an outside blog post and its comments became an impromptu forum to question the data in the article -- with many scientists conducting the same experiment themselves and posting the results (including photos) in real-time.

The second one is obviously a lot more of the way research should work these days, though it shouldn't all be hidden in a separate site's comments. If journals are serious about advancing knowledge, rather than locking it up, why not give up on the obviously faulty simple peer review process, and open up the content so that knowledgeable people can input their own thoughts in comments directly on the article in question? Isn't that what knowledge exchange is supposed to be about?

Filed Under: academics, conversation, journals, openness, research

Gartner Tells Reporter: You're Not Allowed To Mention Gartner Research Without Our Permission

from the copyright-gone-insane dept

Rich Kulawiec alerts us to the news that Gartner (which absolutely should know better) sent a legal nastygram to a Network World blogger, Larry Chaffin, for the mortal sin of mentioning Gartner without Gartner's permission. Specifically, Gartner is claiming full control over its research reports, and saying that a reporter cannot quote them. Gartner is almost certainly wrong about this. If the information is newsworthy (and it sounds like it was), then a reporter absolutely has the right to post it. Also, Gartner seems confused about how all of this works. It first claims that posting such info was a violation of its own policy... but it's a policy that Chaffin had not agreed to. Perhaps Gartner had a claim against the vendor who gave Chaffin the report, but that doesn't preclude posting the information. On top of that (of course) Gartner is pulling a bit of copyfraud, by claiming that copyright gives it many more rights than it really does:

Gartner's published research is proprietary intellectual property of Gartner, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Your company's mention of our research in your material does not comply with our Copyright and Quote Policy (available at the link below) and so this is an infringement of our copyrights. I ask that you take immediate and effective steps to remove this blog posting and also any other unauthorized mention of Gartner's research in any other venue which you control.

There's just one (big) problem with that. Copyright law doesn't really give a hoot what Gartner's own "Quote Policy" is. Copyright law has built in exceptions that can't just be written away like that.

Chaffin actually did take down the posts after being threatened, claiming that in doing so he's showing how meaningless Gartner is. He also promises never to post about any Gartner reports ever again in the future -- but did talk up Gartner's ridiculous policies and demands (amusingly referring to the company as Gar-ner).

Beyond just being of questionable legality, Gartner's actions also seem incredibly short-sighted (especially for a firm that's supposed to be known for being forward looking). Everyone knows the real value in a Gartner report is not in any actual analysis, but in the PR it might generate for companies that find their way into the infamous (and silly) "magic quadrant." By forcing reporters not to talk about who's in that magic quadrant, Gartner has just made its reports significantly less valuable. Now that's foresight.

Filed Under: chilling effects, copyfraud, copyright, research, takedowns
Companies: gartner

Should Copyright Be Abolished On Academic Work?

from the makes-sense dept

We've discussed a few times over the years how copyright gets in the way of academic work. Journals (who get all of their writing and reviewing totally for free) insist on holding the copyright for those works in many cases. I've even heard of academics who had to redo pretty much the identical experiment because they couldn't even cite their own earlier results for fear of a copyright claim. It leads to wacky situations where academics either ignore the fact that the journals they published in hold the copyright on their work, or they're forced to jump through hoops to retain certain rights. That's bad for everyone.

However, at least some are recognizing the problem. Christopher points us to a new paper, which questions if copyright law should be abolished for academic papers:

The conventional rationale for copyright of written works, that copyright is needed to foster their creation, is seemingly of limited applicability to the academic domain. For in a world without copyright of academic writing, academics would still benefit from publishing in the major way that they do now, namely, from gaining scholarly esteem. Yet publishers would presumably have to impose fees on authors, because publishers would not be able to profit from reader charges. If these publication fees would be borne by academics, their incentives to publish would be reduced. But if the publication fees would usually be paid by universities or grantors, the motive of academics to publish would be unlikely to decrease (and could actually increase) – suggesting that ending academic copyright would be socially desirable in view of the broad benefits of a copyright-free world. If so, the demise of academic copyright should be achieved by a change in law, for the 'open access' movement that effectively seeks this objective without modification of the law faces fundamental difficulties.

The whole paper is well worth reading, and it makes a very compelling case (admittedly, I'm already a strong believer in the harm done by copyright in many instances) as to why copyright makes no sense in the academic setting, and likely causes a lot more harm than good. Beyond showing why abolishing copyright on academic works wouldn't decrease output, it also suggests that it would lead to nuermous additional benefits as well, that come with more freedom in sharing ideas, which speeds further ideas and innovation. The last bit, suggesting why the "open access" movement isn't enough is also quite interesting. While I've always paid attention to the "open access" people, I hadn't given it too much thought. The paper though, does outline some key problems with the open access push as it stands today, and shows how the goals of the open access movement would be much better accomplished not through such a system, but in getting rid of copyright on academic research entirely.

Filed Under: academic, copyright, journals, research

The Ridiculous Copyright Situation Faced By Academics Who Want To Promote Their Own Research

from the don't-ask,-don't-tell dept

Ed Kohler points us to a long, but fascinating blog post, by Stuart Shieber, a CS professor at Harvard, discussing the somewhat ridiculous copyright situation that many academics deal with in trying to promote their own works. I've heard similar stories from other professors I know, but this one is worth reading. Shieber points out the importance of academics getting their research published in journals, but how annoying it is that most journals require those academics to give up all sorts of rights -- including the right to distribute their own research on their websites. However, he notes that most published academics simply ignore this rule, and you end up with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Even though they're legally prevented from putting up a PDF of their work on their website, they do so anyway, and journals just look the other way.

Shieber, however, finds this situation to be a bad thing, and instead adds an amendment that at least grants him the right to publish his own research on his own website. It seems pretty ridiculous that this should even be an issue at all. He notes that most journals haven't had a problem with this -- which is surprising, but good to hear. He did run into one publisher, however, who fought him on it, and after lots of back and forth, his paper was pulled. The reasoning that the journal gave didn't make much sense, and Shieber shows how wrong they are (for example, they claim that if professors published the works on their website, demand for journal subscriptions would go down -- but Shieber did a quick look, and found that about 80% of those who published in the same journal had posted the content anyway, and it hadn't killed off the journal, so arguing against him seemed pointless). Eventually, he was able to convince the journal to change its policies and got his paper published, but it delayed publication for a while.

It's really unfortunate that journals still think that locking up such content makes sense. The idea that researchers shouldn't be allowed to share their own research with the world because some journal needs artificial scarcity for its business model is something that needs to be put to rest.

Filed Under: academics, copyright, journals, open access, research, stuart shieber

South Africa Considers Potentially Requiring Patents On Publicly Funded Research

from the say-what-now? dept

I missed this story from a few weeks ago, but one of our readers, going by the name of bikey, alerts us to a proposal in South Africa, that would potentially require patents on certain publicly funded research. While this seems totally backwards for any number of reasons (and many of us believe that publicly funded research should be available to the public since they paid for it), apparently some are concerned that "foreign multinationals" might "misappropriate" the research. So, even if a university and the researcher choose not to protect the research results with IP, if a government body determines that the results could have commercial viability, it would have the ability to control the rights. Amusingly, those supporting this proposal claim it will help "facilitate tech transfer." Actually, it does the opposite, because it puts limits and a tollbooth in the way -- but why let that get in the way.

The article notes (phew) that there's significant opposition to the proposal -- especially from researchers who are greatly troubled by the fact that researchers may have no say in whether or not their research is "protected," and how it may do serious harm to "open" research initiatives and idea sharing -- which, by the way, have been shown to increase the pace of innovation. The article also does a good job highlighting how the focus on patenting university research in the US has done more harm than good, by decreasing openness, slowing down the pace of innovation and causing universities to spend tons of money on "tech transfer offices" that get too focused on trying to lock up every idea a professor has. All in all, this proposal sounds dreadful. Who would support it? Well, at the end of the article, they indicate Microsoft is a big fan. Anyway, since the article is from a few weeks ago, it would be great to know if there's been any update on this. Anyone have any info on whether this proposal is going anywhere?

Filed Under: patents, research, south africa

A Look At The DMCA's Chilling Effects On Security Research

from the sad dept

Michael Scott points us to a column over at BetaNews recounting many of the examples of how the DMCA has created a chilling effect on security research. The column talks about the importance of hacking and tinkering, and then reminds us of all those stories we've heard: Ed Felten (threatened for both his research into DRM and e-voting), Alex Haldeman's DRM research. Seth Finklestein on censorware. Dmitry Sklyarov spending months in jail for discovering a security flaw. Eric Corley for daring to publish the basic DeCSS code in a magazine. Most of these stories you should already be familiar with, but it seems that the massive chilling effects of the DMCA on security research haven't been discussed in a while -- and it's certainly worth putting some of these famed cases together in one spot to remind people that the problems with the DMCA remain and are doing great damage to our security -- at exactly the time when the government claims we need to improve our cybersecurity.

Filed Under: dmca, research, security, stifling

Another Example Of Patents Putting Lives At Risk

from the very-sad dept

This one's a bit old, but I finally got around to reading Joe Mullin's fascinating, but troubling, account which pits a Stanford professor and doctor against a French company, Advanced Biological Laboratories, that claims to own patents on (effectively) using computer data to help doctors make diagnostic decisions. If you want to see the specific patents, they are 6,188,988 and 6,081,786. At issue, is the fact that Dr. Bob Shafer has been working for years (actually, since before either patent was filed) on putting together HIVdb, an exceptionally useful database on HIV details that many researchers rely on to help figure out potential treatments to HIV. Except... of course, ABL claims that it infringes on those patents.

Since Dr. Shafer works for Stanford, ABL threatened Stanford, who brought in some lawyers who pointed out that the patents had very little chance of surviving any sort of review -- but Stanford, apparently anxious to avoid a long, drawn-out or costly lawsuit, agreed to settle the dispute, promising to put a warning note on HIVdb that using the system for commercial purposes might require a license from ABL. Shafer, who didn't know such a settlement was in the works, was quite upset to find out about it -- and refused to put the warning message on the site (eventually he put an edited version, hidden deep within the site, including his own opinion about how silly it was).

Shafer also has hired his own lawyer and is pushing forward to invalidate ABL's patents. He's also been learning more and more about how such patents are all too often used against their stated purpose, and how, rather than encouraging innovation, they're being used to stifle it and (more importantly) to put lives at risk. Shafer and his colleagues are reasonably horrified that Stanford gave in, noting that it only encourages such behavior, and enables ABL and others to pull the same sort of stunt against others.

Given that Shafer refused to live up to the terms of the deal that he had never agreed to in the first place, ABL moved forward and sued Shafer directly, and that case is now ongoing -- even as Shafer hopes to invalidate the patent through the Patent Office itself. The whole thing is yet another story of how patents are being used to stifle innovation -- and sometimes put lives at risk. It's tragic that we've been seeing so many such stories lately. Update: It's been pointed out that some of you might want to look at the great website Shafer has put together, at HarmfulPatents.org if you want to learn more.

Filed Under: bob shafer, healthcare, hiv, hivdb, patents, research
Companies: advanced biological laboratories, stanford university

Don't Newspapers Owe Google Money For Helping Them Research Stories For Free?

from the of-course-not... dept

Last month, we parodied the mainstream press' criticism that everyone else "owed" them money because they were the original creators of a story, by noting that the press never paid the newsmakers for creating the story in the first place. Danny Sullivan has now taken a more serious look at this, noting that for all the talk about how Google is "stealing" from news publications, those same publications never seem willing to admit how much they rely on Google for their jobs these days -- and perhaps one could make an argument that these publications actually owe Google for helping make them more productive. After all, the newspapers claim they want a "fair share" of the money Google makes since it's using their content for "free." But, the same argument works in reverse. If it's "fair," then shouldn't Google get a share of the money the news publications make, since its reporters use Google's tools "for free"?

Obviously, the real point is that both sides benefit, and each is responsible for putting in place business models that work. Google has done that successfully. Many news publications have not. But no one should be claiming its "unfair" or that someone else owes them money.

Meanwhile, Sullivan's piece also goes into great detail about how a random AP story he found was written after an AP reporter found some stories on some blogs, and used them to do more research and publish his story. But were the blogs on which he found the story credited? Of course not. Did they get "their fair share"? Of course not. Hell, unlike Google linking to publications' stories, these bloggers didn't even get any traffic or attention from the AP reporter, who simply wants to pretend he came up with the story from nothing.

And the AP wants to claim that it's being treated unfairly?

Filed Under: business models, danny sullivan, fairness, free, journalism, newspapers, research