The article by Petra Moser concludes that industrialization takes different courses in nations that do not provide patent protection when compared to those that do. I could find no reference to non-patent countries exhibiting either more or less innovation or an increase or decrease in small entities. Obviously, trade secrets are more important in countries without patents.

But there’s no evidence that patents are required for innovation. And there’s no evidence that there’s more innovation in countries with patents.

The claim on small entities referred more to the research of David Levine and some others.

The article by Eric Schiff, “Industrialisation Without National Patents” is discussed in several articles and referenced by George Monbiot in “Patent Nonsense”. Monbiot relates the innovative increase in two patentless countries; the Netherlands and Switzerland.

It’s a book by Schiff, not an article, and why are you referencing Monbiot’s review of it rather than the actual content.

This is attributable to developing industries in those two countries simply appropriating patented technologies from other countries.

That is incorrect. If you read the book, you find that there was *some* appropriation, but it hardly explained the level of innovation that occurred. In fact, companies started MOVING into both countries to avoid having to be slowed down by patent laws elsewhere. That wasn’t because of the ability to appropriate. It was so they could innovate freely.

All of these major multinationals now advocate strong patent laws protecting them, according to Monbiot, the point of his article.

Yes, as my recent article showed, there is a ton of evidence that stronger patent laws come into place AFTER innovation has occurred.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/031128532.shtml

In fact, most of the research shows exactly that: stronger patent laws TRAIL innovation, rather than the other way around.

In other words, it’s used to grant an unfair advantage to those who innovated previously, but don’t want to keep innovating at the same pace, and hope to slow down the competition.

As you have alluded to patents and copyright as detrimental to innovation, possibly we could throw trademarks into the basket of items to discard.

Again, I ask you to read my articles on this subject:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080228/003450379.shtml

Trademarks are quite different. Trademarks are NOT intellectual property, but are consumer protection, to keep you from buying Bob’s Soda thinking that it’s Coca Cola.

During my review last evening I was reminded that the study of economics is truly a “soft” science. Differing conclusions may be easily drawn from the same data set.

Not really. You can draw different conclusions, but in many cases you would be wrong to do so. Further experiments will often highlight things and show proper conclusions. When you look at the large body of economic research into this subject, there is a ton showing that patents do not help innovation, and almost none showing that it does.

I will draw the conclusion that patents are an extremely important component of any inventive and innovative society.

Again, I don’t see how you support that from the evidence. Even you showed this is untrue, with both the Netherlands and Switzerland industrializing without them. And, contrary to your point, both did so not just by appropriating, but by innovating. In fact, even the article you cited mentions that:

“But Switzerland’s economic growth during this period did not rely solely upon purloining other nations’ patented processes. Industrial innovation flourished, especially in food technology. No country, Schiff notes, has ever contributed “as many basic inventions in this field as did Switzerland during her patentless period”. In 1875, for example, Daniel Peter invented milk chocolate. In 1879, Rudolf Lindt developed chocolat fondant. In 1886, Julius Maggi invented powdered soup. A few years later he developed stock cubes. All these men founded companies which still bear their names today. But the biggest food firm to emerge in this period took root in 1865, when Henri Nestle developed a cereal for children.”

So, that disproves your absolute statement that patents are a necessary component.

The patent system in the United States must therefore be maintained as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. Patent reform as currently proposed is antithetical to that proposition

You do not discuss WHY patent reform goes against that proposition. While I do have problems with the patent reform proposal, can you explain what about it goes against the core ideas of the Constitution?

Properly fund, staff, and manage US PTO and reforming the patent system in this country is unnecessary.

The USPTO is well funded. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to staff it properly. We just spoke about that as well:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080227/230638378.shtml

These are all things we have discussed before. It is simply impossible to create a patent office that can accurately determine what deserves a patent, and with the rate of innovation you simply cannot hire enough people to do so.

It’s like the telephone system. It was limited by the fact you needed human operators. The fact that the USPTO needs people to review every patent is a LIMITING factor. The better path to innovaiton is to ignore the patent system altogether and route around it.