New Presidential Science And Tech Advisory Council Includes Patent Reformer
from the it's-a-start dept
While plenty of us have been quite concerned about President Obama’s decision to appoint a bunch of copyright maximalists to the Justice Department (and the likely appointment of a maximalist to the IP Czar position), there’s still the question of where the administration might come down on patent reform. While most of the press reports about President Obama’s new Science And Tech Advisory Council have focused on names like Google’s Eric Schmidt or Microsoft’s Craig Mundie, one interesting appointment is Richard Levin, the President of Yale, and an economist with a long-term interest in patents.
While Levin is in the camp of folks who seem to believe the system can be fixed with some tweaks, he definitely recognizes many of the problems with the system, and his earlier research has noted (like similar research) that for new technology markets, patents can often get in the way — especially in situations (like high tech) where innovation is “cumulative.” Levin has pushed hard for increasing the obviousness bar, and making sure that patents actually are new and non-obvious — something that would significantly help. He also was among the team that wrote A Patent System for the 21st Century. While there’s plenty that I disagree with in both the assumptions and conclusions of the book, on the whole, it does show a rather thoughtful analysis. It’s nice to see at least someone talking to the President recognizes that “more” isn’t always “better” when it comes to intellectual monopolies. Separately, as others have noted, the really big deal here isn’t necessarily who’s on the board, but how much the new administration is willing to invest in funding for science and tech initiatives…
Filed Under: patent reform, patents, president obama, richard levin, science and tech advisory council
Comments on “New Presidential Science And Tech Advisory Council Includes Patent Reformer”
I have a problem with the term “intellectual property” and its derivatives. There is nothing intelligent about it, and it is not property.
Re: Re:
I have a problem with techdirt lemming-punks
Re: Re: Re:
not nearly as bad as rocketpack laser-monkeys.
Re: Re: Re:
Troll. Do not feed
Re: Re:
Not property? Really? Property is defined by law. If you do not believe me, try buying a house. Your property exists only because it is defined by the state. Otherwise, I could just occupy your “property” when you go shopping. Intellectual property is just as much property as your house or your car.
Re: Re: Re:
Not property? Really? Property is defined by law. If you do not believe me, try buying a house. Your property exists only because it is defined by the state. Otherwise, I could just occupy your “property” when you go shopping. Intellectual property is just as much property as your house or your car.
You’ve got it quite mixed up, unfortunately. The fact that it’s defined by the state is meaningless. The massive difference is copyability. If you occupy someone else’s house, you are occupying it. That’s not the case with a piece of content. In that case, you’re using a copy.
Quite different.
Copyright and patents are not “property” in the traditional sense by any means. Claiming they’re the same will only lead to bad policies.
To prove the point: with tangible property, if I buy it, I’m allowed to do what I want with it, including making a copy and selling the copy.
Are you saying that’s ok with content also?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would love to see you make a copy of your land. I would also like to see you “make a copy” of your Roundup Ready seeds. You can make a copy. If you get caught, then Monsanto will spank you. Also, your seeds will breed true for one or two seasons. When you want more, after your saved seeds no longer breed true, you may find that no distributor will sell to you. Good luck with that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To prove the point: with tangible property, if I buy it, I’m allowed to do what I want with it, including making a copy and selling the copy.
Au contraire. You are not “allowed to do what” you “want with it,” and you know that. There are literally thousands of things you cannot do with tangible property. Why? Because the government defines property rights and the limits of those rights, regardless of whether it is a piece of land or a television set, both of which are as tangible as you can get.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To prove the point: with tangible property, if I buy it, I’m allowed to do what I want with it, including making a copy and selling the copy.
I look forward to the next copy of your Mustang Cobra. Call me. I will come look at it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I look forward to the next copy of your Mustang Cobra. Call me. I will come look at it.
That’s a trademark/trade dress issue, (again, consumer protection), not a copyright/patent issue.
And, in fact, we recently saw a situation where it’s becoming popular for some to buy fake Ferarris, knowing that they’re fake.
I see nothing wrong with that scenario, because no one is harmed. Those who buy the cars know they’re not real, and are happy with that. So there should be no issues in that situation.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Mike:
I suspect, though I do not know, that what is under the hood will not perform like a real Mustang, which means the copy is only the body. I was speaking of a true copy, rather than a small fraction of a copy.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Mustang,
Why dont you buy a real car ?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Such as…?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I suspect, though I do not know, that what is under the hood will not perform like a real Mustang, which means the copy is only the body. I was speaking of a true copy, rather than a small fraction of a copy.
What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. The point is if you COULD make a true copy, then you would be able to do so.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Not under our current laws, for a whole bunch of reasons. However, even if you could under our current laws, I suspect Ford has an array of trade secrets that would keep you from making an duplicate so exact that it would have the same performance.
Re: Re:
Regardless of your beliefs, intellectual property is intelligent. For example, consider the value of a trademark. When you buy your Toyota, it is intelligent that you know you are getting a Toyota rather than a BMW with a Toyota label – which is illegal because we have intellectual property. Without intellectual property, we would never know what we are getting and our world would be in chaos.
Re: Re: Re:
Regardless of your beliefs, intellectual property is intelligent. For example, consider the value of a trademark.
Trademark shouldn’t be considered IP. It’s consumer protection. Quite different than copyright or patents.
hen you buy your Toyota, it is intelligent that you know you are getting a Toyota rather than a BMW with a Toyota label – which is illegal because we have intellectual property. Without intellectual property, we would never know what we are getting and our world would be in chaos.
Again, that’s consumer protection law, not property law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trademark shouldn’t be considered IP. It’s consumer protection. Quite different than copyright or patents.
It’s a product of the mind that does not exist in physical form, and it gives the trademark owner a right to exclude others from using the same trademark. How is that not considered property?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s a product of the mind that does not exist in physical form, and it gives the trademark owner a right to exclude others from using the same trademark. How is that not considered property?
Because it has almost no similarities to property. Trademark is NOT designed as a right to exclude. It’s designed as a commerce rule to avoid confusion. Others are free to use it in non-confusing, non-diluting ways. It’s nothing like property, and nothing like patents/copyright. It’s not even based on the same part of the constitution.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Because it has almost no similarities to property. Trademark is NOT designed as a right to exclude. It’s designed as a commerce rule to avoid confusion. Others are free to use it in non-confusing, non-diluting ways. It’s nothing like property, and nothing like patents/copyright. It’s not even based on the same part of the constitution.
Once again, you’re only thinking of “property” as only pertaining to physical objects. Classifying a thing as “property” does not require it to be tangible or even scarce. All that’s required is the ability exert a right against it, like the right to exclude or use.
Stocks and bonds are property. Shares in a company are property. A bank account is property. Why? Because someone can own rights that are tied to those things, such as the right to use or exclude. In contrast, air is not property, and neither is water in a lake or an ocean, even though they are tangible. Why? Because that cannot be appropriated: everyone may enjoy them, but no one can exclusively own them.
When someone owns a trademark, he retains a right regarding that trademark. Specifically, that right is the right to exclude others from using that mark or a similar mark in the same or similar trade. As qualified as that right is, it is a right nonetheless, and it is what makes a trademark fall into the classification of property, specifically intellectual property.
For the purposes of classifying trademarks as property, it does not matter whether trademark law originates from the Commerce Clause, the Patent and Copyright Clause, or even state law, and it also does not matter what the reasoning behind trademark law is. Trademarks are still classified as property because they can be owned and exerted against others.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Once again, you’re only thinking of “property” as only pertaining to physical objects
No. I’m not. I’m thinking of property as being property.
Trademark is not property. It’s a consumer protection/brand protection statute that is not property in any way, shape or form. The differences between it and property are legion.
Comparing the two is silly. The rights associated with real property and trademark may overlap in some ways, but are completely different in other ways. Lumping them together only confuses people and does nothing to further the discussion and much to muddle the discussion.
When someone owns a trademark, he retains a right regarding that trademark. Specifically, that right is the right to exclude others from using that mark or a similar mark in the same or similar trade.
For a single purpose: to prevent consumer confusion (and, more recently, though it’s disputed, to prevent dilution). That’s ENTIRELY different than regular property, which grants those rights not for a specific purpose at all.
s qualified as that right is, it is a right nonetheless, and it is what makes a trademark fall into the classification of property, specifically intellectual property.
Not at all. ANd you do realize that trademark being lumped in as “IP” with patents and copyright is a very recent phenomenon, right? When trademark first came around, no one even thought of them as being remotely similar to copyright and patents.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No. I’m not. I’m thinking of property as being property.
Trademark is not property. It’s a consumer protection/brand protection statute that is not property in any way, shape or form. The differences between it and property are legion.
Comparing the two is silly. The rights associated with real property and trademark may overlap in some ways, but are completely different in other ways. Lumping them together only confuses people and does nothing to further the discussion and much to muddle the discussion.
So what? So what if trademarks are different from real or personal property? A share of preferred stock is also quite different from real and personal property, but that does not change it’s identity as property. Someone can own it, buy it, and sell it. One can do the same thing with a trademark registration. Obviously different types of property convey different types of rights, but the quality of the right does not change its title as property.
Your concern about confusing people in a discussion is unavailing. You may not want to put trademarks under the heading of “Property” in order to not confuse people, but you’re then spreading misinformation that trademarks are not property, which would also confuse people. If you want to draw a distinction between trademarks and personalty or realty, then do so by calling those items by their appropriate names. Grouping together personalty and realty as “property” or “regular property” and then treating trademarks like they’re something other than “property” is misleading and wrong.
For a single purpose: to prevent consumer confusion (and, more recently, though it’s disputed, to prevent dilution). That’s ENTIRELY different than regular property, which grants those rights not for a specific purpose at all.
So what? Why does that matter when we’re talking about whether something should be classified as property or not? Can you buy, sell and own a trademark? Yes, you can. Can you use it? Yes, you can. Can you exclude someone else from using it? In limited circumstances, but yes, you can. Can you name something else that has those same qualities and is not regarded as property? I doubt you can.
Not at all. ANd you do realize that trademark being lumped in as “IP” with patents and copyright is a very recent phenomenon, right? When trademark first came around, no one even thought of them as being remotely similar to copyright and patents.
And now that we are more educated, we see the similarities more clearly, so clearly that we are willing to call trademarks intellectual property. Why is that so hard to understand?
The dilution statute is a bunch of cockamamie nonsense, but we can save that for a different day.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Mike:
Your statement may be correct from a philosophical point-of-view, but in reality trademark is designed as a right to exclude.
For example, Coca Cola is such a well-known trademark that essentially ALL use is excluded (other than by the Coca Cola Company, of course). If you think I am wrong, then show me a single example of a product called Coca Cola that is not affiliated with the Coca Cola Company. For that matter, I wonder whether there are any products called Coke that are not affiliated with the Coca Cola company. We cannot count the material used in steelmaking (lower case c). That material existed long before Coca Cola and is the name of a type of material rather than a product from a specific company.
In any event, Coca Cola has the right to EXCLUDE anyone from use the Coca Cola name in a huge array of areas, and they do it all the time. Their reputation does not seem to have suffered as a result.
Re: Re:
I have a problem with the term “intellectual property” and its derivatives. There is nothing intelligent about it, and it is not property.
Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of “property,” as the word is not confined to physical objects.
I’d disagree; the last is only a big deal if the government isn’t going to pay for R&D with my money and then hand the patents and copyrights over to a private company. If the public pays for research, the public should own the results. Otherwise, all the funding in the world is just going to be counterproductive, as research which probably would have happened anyway (and likely ended up in the public domain) gets locked away.
Re: Re:
Research does not happen by itself, punky
Only shit happens
Re: Re: Re:
Actually basic research tends to happen without funding.
It’s applied research that’s sexy and gets the funding. It’s applied research that leads to patents.
But It’s basic research that gets things done. And the people who do basic research get paid very little, but they’re the heroes of the Physics community and their names live on forever.
Remember, Albert Einstein did basic research.
Re: Re:
My thoughts, exactly. Spending a bunch of public money during an economic downturn better lead to gains by the public. But, given history, it will only lead to gains by private industry, who will get the patents, the profits, and all the gains from the publicly-funded research. As usual, throwing more money at a problem does not make it go away.
I see a pattern
Interesting …
When AD leaves, WH appears
When WH leaves, AD appears
When AD leaves, WH appears
When WH leaves, AD appears
Re: I see a pattern
Stay off LSD, kid
Re: Re: I see a pattern
Do not feed the troll
Re: I see a pattern
When AD leaves, WH appears
When WH leaves, AD appears
Nah, they’ve overlapped… and I can say pretty certainly that they’re different people.
fraud
patent reform is a fraud on America…
please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform
Re: fraud
from the ‘PIA’ site-
Limiting Injunctive Relief
The PIA Viewpoint
This provision is really a form of compulsory licensing and may well be classified as a regulatory taking. This provision unconstitutionally undercuts the “exclusive rights of authors and inventors” granted under valid patents by allowing the courts to determine “equity” in considering “fairness of the remedy in light of all the facts and the relevant interest of the parties associated with the invention.” Patent holders see no distinctions, categories, or degrees associated with the concept of infringement.
Statements like above are why reasonable people know that the system needs reform- OMG the horror of allowing the courts to decide what is fair in light of the facts
Re: fraud
patent reform is a fraud on America…
please see truereform.piausa.org for a different/opposing view on patent reform
PIAUSA.org? Sounds familiar. Wait a minute! Some guy with a paragraph for a signature kept talking about PIAUSA. If I remember right, it looked like this:
President – PIAUSA.org – XYZ at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – InventorEd.org – XYZ at InvEd.org
Washington, DC
I wonder what happened to them?
Easy reform for renewing patents
Since patents were created to spur innovation rather than stop it, it’s always seemed strange to me that a company can file a patent, sit on it and do nothing for 7 years, and then renew it to last even longer. It seems that renewal requests are always automatically granted.
An easy reform (and a very small but important step in the right direction) would be to say that anyone who wants to renew a patent must demonstrate that they have actually brought the patented idea to market, or at least licensed it to somebody who has. This way, many of these unimplemented patents would be released at the first renewal period, thus possibly allowing the technologies they describe to be developed by anyone who can find a way to profit off of the idea to the benefit of all.
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
You obviously have no f****** clue, punky
Each and every high-tech product is a combination of many patented inventions
If you have a patent on one feature you would still need the license for the rest of patented features to even start thinking about manufacturing (not to mention capital costs)
A patent is a license to exclude, not a license to produce:
a negative right
Also, try to licence your patent to a large incumbent manufacturer being a little guy…
I mean without protracted litigation
you have a better chance of landing on the Moon
Remember the rule:
When dealing with large companies there is no free lunch, unless you are the lunch
Stay off drugs, kid, and don’t believe everything you read about in mass-media: it’s all corporate propaganda including this shitty blog
Re: Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
Ignoring the obvious bitterness, lack of proper spelling, grammar and punctuation, and the mostly inhoherent insults at everyone, it seems to me that you, too, are pro-patent reform.
So, what’s the problem? Most readers here are also in that group.
Of course.. maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you *like* the system as it is where it is practically impossible to actually make a new product without a team of lawyers and very, very deep pockets.
Also, as I *know* has been asked before. If this blog is so shitty, why are you always here? Do you need a friend?
I’ll be your friend. What’s your email address– I’ll send you an e-card that will cheer you up!
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
Yeah, it would be much better if truly non-obvious inventions were kept as trade secrets, then the owner could “sit on it and do nothing” until someone else, perhaps decades or centuries from now, comes up with the same invention.
Re: Easy reform for renewing patents
Since patents were created to spur innovation rather than stop it, it’s always seemed strange to me that a company can file a patent, sit on it and do nothing for 7 years, and then renew it to last even longer. It seems that renewal requests are always automatically granted.
JJ apparently doesn’t know much about patent law. Patents cannot be renewed; they last for 20 years from the date of filing and then expire. This whole paragraph is nonsense.
Re:Re:
#14 “Without intellectual property, we would never know what we are getting and our world would be in chaos.”
nice BIG leap there buddy. This assumes no self-correcting measures exist within society. How is YOUR reputation doing lately?
Re: Re:Re:
Raybone:
I think there is a lot of history regarding “self-correcting measures.” Indeed, I think that many of the laws we have today are the “self-correcting” measures implemented because “self-correcting measures” tend to include things like price fixing, trusts, graft and just about every other vice we can imagine, and more.
How is YOUR reputation doing lately?