The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
from the wow dept
A whole bunch of you are sending in one of the first mainstream articles I’ve seen on patents that gets almost (but not quite) everything right. The Economist has a wonderful piece that clearly explains why patents are hindering, rather than helping innovation. It notes the difference between innovation and invention — and how patents quite often can hinder the former. It discusses how patent thickets get in the way of innovation, and the focus on using patents to force through massive cross-licensing deals simply adds transaction costs and reduces efficiency in the market. The solution to all of this put forth by the Economist is mostly the same thing we’ve been suggesting for years: bring back a real test for “obviousness” that gets rid of obvious patents — though, it falls short in not suggesting an independent invention test for obviousness. The only other areas where I’d say the Economist article falls short is (1) simply assuming that patents do work in pharma and biotech — when there’s evidence that’s not true, (2) assuming that a ruling in Bilski alone might clear up the obviousness issue and, finally, (3) its parting suggestion that programmers focus on copyright monopolies, rather than patents. Still, it’s about as good a piece on this subject as you might expect to see in such a mainstream publication.
Filed Under: economist, innovation, invention, obviousness, patent system, patents
Comments on “The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed”
Use it or lose it
I still believe that there needs to be a use it or lose provision with patents as well. I.e. if you patent something you have x period of time to produce a product using it in some way (or at least be able to prove you have one in active development), say two to three years. If you are not making use of your patent by that point then you lose your ability to sue others over it. I would imagine this would drastically cut back on patent troll companies and make it a lot less profitable. It would also serve as a nice nuclear disarmament of companies stockpiling nuclear arsenals of patents to block all competitors.
I suppose now that I think about it more that there would have to be some sort of provision where licensing the patent to a company who is producing a product using it would count. So you might very well see an upswing of patent trolls filing lawsuits and such to force a licensing settlement. Still, though, I think that it might help enough to be a net plus since it would get rid of a lot of the thickets that make it so hard to do anything truly innovative, especially if it were combined with an independent invention defense.
Re: Use it or lose it
Yes!! I agree completely. This is needed so very much. *sigh*
Re: Re: Use it or lose it
I mean, if the whole point of a patent is to ostensibly foster innovation by giving you an exclusivity period on your idea and you aren’t making use of said idea then obviously the greater good is not being served and someone else should be allowed to make use of it.
Re: Use it or lose it
Not only this but make it so if one company sues another for infringement over some feature, no other company can.
Since they would be suing over the same feature on an item (I am mainly thinking tech here, and have not thought everything out for areas this would affect), they would have to sue the other company that did the licensing.
Off the top of my head I think this would greatly reduce patent thicket problems for innovators, and make companies think twice about filing for patents that cover the same thing in differently vague terms.
I am sure this would cause other problems though. Just didn’t take the time to think them through.
Having an independent invention defense would not solve our patent problem, although I do agree that such a defense should exist.
Even with an independent invention defense, it would still be a fact question for the jury to determine whether the accused patent infringer invented the process/method/whatever independently. Thus there would still likely be a long drawn out and costly trial which the patent holder would use to force a settlement.
The standard has to be much higher and more strict in order to obtain a patent in the first place. Throwing out a bunch of random patents does not magically create innovation anymore than randomly banging keys on a keyboard will magically create music worth listening to.
But the patent office makes good money with its “you file it and we’ll grant it” patent process and all of those patent attorneys make a great living fighting over our vague patent laws, so I won’t hold my breath awaiting any changes.
Re: Re:
I couldn’t agree more. The story goes, that large cororation initially fought patents tooth and nail, right up to the bitter end. In the 70’s though, they started to realize how they could manipulate the patent system and stifle innovation. If you think that large companies are pro-innovation you’re mistaken. I know first hand, that they have massive contingencies for market change. Patent litigation is right up there with lobbying. Which everyone should know by the electric / hydrogen powered car thats not in their garage. I mean we paid car companies billions NOT to make, while the Oil companies bought up battery patents by the truck load.
At any rate, the problem is in litigation fees and disgusting “damage” awards. Couple that with default judgments and you see how much power were dealing with here.
But, I'm having so much fun
“magically create music worth listening to”.
Like most IP lawyers, I enjoy jamming to “Lucky” Lene Lovich songs.
Regarding part 3
As a programmer, I would once again like to state that all the IP people can take their patents, their copyrights, and other imaginary property and stick them where the sun don’t shine with regards to my programs. Me and all of the programmers I know feel this way. We will code what needs to be coded however we can code it. Other people have probably done it before in a similar fashion. Doesn’t matter. Those who hired us need it this way. If they didn’t they would have just bought the program from elsewhere. I will share my code when it is possible to help others out and I am allowed. Just how most of us work.
I know there are some coders who think the world of themselves and that they are better than others, but we don’t like them for obvious reasons.
Re: Regarding part 3
Ditto…
HEY I KNOW
lets make patents last forever and we can then also patent ideas and thoughts too so everytime you think you owe people money this way were all rich right every single thought and idea pwned just like lets have forever copyrgihts and we’ll hang any one caught with stuff they shuld not have
BE LAZY TO DAY
SUPPORT THE AMERICAN way
OHHHHHHH GOOOOD I HOPE RILEY SHOW UP!!!!!
If he shows up drunk again, you could set up a PPV event Mike 🙂
Re: Re:
When RJR shows up drunk, he usually posts as “Angry Dude” instead.
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, Riley always shows up as Riley. Unlike most of the TechDIRT weasels I stand behind what I have to say. And while Mike has his head stuck where the daylight doesn’t shine at least he is man enough to stand behind what he has to say even if he whines quite a bit when his feeling are hurt.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And while Mike has his head stuck where the daylight doesn’t shine
Gee, Ronald, I ask you for evidence, and all I get is more insults.
Surely you can provide a single shred of evidence to support your position. Can’t you?
E CON in the Mist
Sometimes (perhaps more often then not) the ECON artists at the eponymous magazine opine on subject they really don’t know anything about. This then is one of those times.
I understand that this column seeks the approval of those whose main claim to accuracy is their English accent.
There is a very good reason why Japan leads England in both invention and innovation. It certainly helps that they have neither Economists nor Techdirt to misguide and misinform.
Re: E CON in the Mist
yes, dissenting arguments are rather pesky, aren’t they? especially when they gain credibility and a wider audience.
Re: E CON in the Mist
Sometimes (perhaps more often then not) the ECON artists at the eponymous magazine opine on subject they really don’t know anything about. This then is one of those times.
Actually, most of what they wrote has numerous studies and evidence backing it up. We’ve presented much of that here.
If you have evidence to the contrary, would you care to share it? Thanks!
I understand that this column seeks the approval of those whose main claim to accuracy is their English accent.
Ah, I see. When you don’t have any evidence or facts on your side, resort to insults.
There is a very good reason why Japan leads England in both invention and innovation. It certainly helps that they have neither Economists nor Techdirt to misguide and misinform.
Odd. Both the Economist and Techdirt are available in Japan. Perhaps you are not familiar with how this internet works.
Re: Re: E CON in the Mist
The reason no one even bothers to offer you evidence is that we know from observing your tactics that it is futile.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re: E CON in the Mist
The reason no one even bothers to offer you evidence is that we know from observing your tactics that it is futile.
Hmm. What “tactics” are those? I mean, surely, if you wanted to convince people that I am so wrong, it only makes sense to present some evidence so people can see it, right? And yet, you don’t.
fraud
“A whole bunch of you are sending in one of the first mainstream articles I’ve see on patents that gets almost (but not quite) everything right.”
The only thing you see are dollar signs from the thieves that pay you to distort the truth or rewrite it.
Patent reform is a fraud on America.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
Re: fraud
Shilling is so much more amusing when it’s blatant. Also, please refrain from linking to sites designed in Geocities, and from supporting thieves that pay you to distort the truth or rewrite it.
Oh, you disagree with that last part? I see, but too bad, because my 100% imaginary evidence is better than your 100% imaginary evidence.
Re: Re: fraud
I’m sorry but that does not and can never beat my 110% imaginary evidence. Please.
Re: fraud
The only thing you see are dollar signs from the thieves that pay you to distort the truth or rewrite it.
Heh. You stop by here on every patent post and make the same false and defamatory claim. You never respond to questions. No one pays me to distort the truth. The posts here are of my own free will and I can back up all of the statements with evidence.
I recognize that you are pals with Ronald, but that’s no excuse for lying.
If you have any evidence to back up your statement, please step forward and speak up.
Re: Re: fraud
I think the point being made by whoever is posting as staff is that you ignore a huge body of credible (I make this point because the stuff you cite is not credible)evidence that inventors do advance society. The underlying problem is that characterize those who produce products based on other stolen inventions as innovators. They are most certainly innovators of cover stories trying to explain away grand larceny. Now you and I know that there is no shortage of credible stories where your idea of “innovators” have been hosed for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars which belonged to the inventors.
Mike, your position on these issues is in left field, totally unsupportable, so why you you continue to discredit yourself?
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re: fraud
I think the point being made by whoever is posting as staff is that you ignore a huge body of credible (I make this point because the stuff you cite is not credible)evidence that inventors do advance society.
Again, cure me of my ignorance. Present the evidence. I’ve been asking you for *years* to do so, and you do not. If I’m ignoring important evidence, I’d surely like to know about it. Please present it.
Mike, your position on these issues is in left field, totally unsupportable, so why you you continue to discredit yourself?
Again, I can present dozens of credible studies, including multiple ones done by Nobel Prize winners, that do, in fact, support what I talk about.
I’m still waiting for you to present your evidence.
Given how much evidence is on my side, I’m a bit confused, Ronald, as to why you would claim my position is “in left field, totally unsupportable.” It’s neither.
Re: fraud
“In 1998, Riley convinced a small organization to name him “inventor of the week” by the submission of false information. The organization was using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website to host its site, but is in no way a part of MIT. Mr. Riley then purchased listings in fourteen “Who’s Who” books and now claims that he is the “recipient (sic) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Invention Dimension Inventor of Week Award”.”
Perhaps patent reform isnt the fraud you are looking for. So what are You being paid to distort the truth? Or is this (gasp) your secret identity, Ronny?
Re: Re: fraud
This quote is from an attorney representing an invention promoter. MIT has a program, the Lemelson-MIT awards and part of that program is to identify contemporary inventors, one a week and I was recognized by that MIT program. I do not think that MIT is a “small organization” and that it is more likely that the idiot who wrote it was smoking something.
I am listed in many of the Marquees Who’s Who publications. This is the real who’s who, not one where you can purchase listings. It is there in black and white and can be found in most public libraries. By the Mike, have any of your accomplishments led to your being listed in Marquees Who’s Who?
Returning to the invention promotion problem, these companies run ads on TV and many call people with issued patents. They claim that they can market inventions when in fact all they market are themselves. They are fleecing aspiring inventors for typically $10,000 to $50,000. The industry is raking in in excess of $500 million a year.
InventorEd investigates these companies, when we have enough evidence we publish it in our Caution section at http://www.InventorEd.org/caution/.
We compile data and supply it to media and law enforcement. Companies which we have targeted have been subjected to the long arm of the law. These cases run on for years, one more than a decade but we have played a role in one fraudster being assessed $26 million, another being assessed $60 million and being shut down and there are other cases including ones which will hopefully lead to criminal convictions.
I am sure that you can understand why these crooks do not like InventorEd or those of us who run it and the affiliated organizations. I think that who dislikes us may be a better measure of our accomplishments then who likes us 🙂
Regarding Mike and his evidence, citing work of those who are sucking at big corporate tits is not proof. Mike’s proof rates right next to claims that tobacco is safe.
All the rationalizations in the world do not make ripping off or advocating ripping off inventors acceptable. Patent property rights are the law of the land and that is not going to change. Obey the law and we can all get along. Steal from us and we will adjust attitudes.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re: fraud tastes like cod
“one a week and I was recognized by that MIT program. I do not think that MIT is a “small organization” and that it is more likely that the idiot who wrote it was smoking something.”
I never realized that your such an highly intelligent person. I really appreciate how you “add” something to the conversation. Your critical thinking skills show your highly educated background.
Thanks for providing your affiliations, it really helps to bolster your argument about people “smoking stuff”.
You should title your posts the “J’ Riley factor” and offer your incredible insight that is free from Mike’s “Spin-ZONE”.
Alright, thanks again Ronald McDonald! I always appreciate a good clown.
Re: Re: Re:2 fraud tastes like cod
And I always appreciate exposing stooges and shills.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re:3 fraud tastes like cod
“And I always appreciate exposing stooges and shills.”
Let me speak for all of Techdirt and say we all appreciate you exposing yourself as the stooge you are.
Thanks again Ronald McDonald, your clown skills are unsurpassed.
Re: Re: Re: fraud
Regarding Mike and his evidence, citing work of those who are sucking at big corporate tits is not proof. Mike’s proof rates right next to claims that tobacco is safe.
Hmm. Looking through the research, I’m having trouble finding any that are being funded by big companies. Perhaps you can help out and point out which ones are? Thanks!
Anyway, if those studies are so bogus, surely you can point me to the counter evidence from legitimate peer reviewed sources. Right? Thanks!
Just throwing this out there.. In the town which I live in one of the colleges here is having a guest speaker on Patent law. She’s a patent attorney from Atlanta and one of the professors at the college had asked me why she, and all of the other speakers, who were unassociated, and from all corners of the country were registered to practice in Texas. I told her, and she thought that the concept of one district being so overwhelmingly favorable to patents no matter how bad was preposterous and insisted that there MUST be another reason. I cant wait to see what these Lawyers say about “problems with the patent system”. Anyone care to guess?
Re: Re:
Sounds to me like she knows a fair and equitable court when she sees one.
The problem with the patent system is that enough has not been done to educate those who steal others intellectual property. But we are working on it.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Now, I’m no economist by any means, so could someone please explain to me why in H&!! the Economist thinks that it would be a good idea to replace one broken, market-distorting, efficiency-killing system with another?
Re: Re:
Yep, it is always more efficient to get someone else to do all the heavy lifting and then swoop in a steal the fruits of their labor. Isn’t this the essence of the TechDIRT mantra?
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Mikey is a shill
C’mon punks
everybody and his brother knows that Mike is a paid shill for the Coalition for Patent Piracy
No big secret there, nothing to argue about
Re: Mikey is a shill
everybody and his brother knows that Mike is a paid shill for the Coalition for Patent Piracy
Huh. Well, I didn’t know that. And if I actually am a paid shill for this coalition, why do I disagree 100% with their stance on patent reform?
Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
Mike,
How is it that you manage to focus almost exclusively on drivel commissioned by large corporate thieves, consistently push their agenda of socializing inventors property and then whine when someone calls you on it. How do you focus on the 1% fringe anti-patent stuff and miss all the stuff which tells the truth?
Our investment in our inventions is just important to us and in most cases much more important then your investment in building TechDIRT. I am willing to be that if some asset thief managed to get inside your organization and oust you that you would be just as pissed off as an inventor who is being defrauded of their property.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://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.
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a shill
How is it that you manage to focus almost exclusively on drivel commissioned by large corporate thieves, consistently push their agenda of socializing inventors property and then whine when someone calls you on it. How do you focus on the 1% fringe anti-patent stuff and miss all the stuff which tells the truth?
Well, I keep asking you to present that stuff that “tells the truth.” I’ve been asking you for years. And you still haven’t given any.
Our investment in our inventions is just important to us and in most cases much more important then your investment in building TechDIRT. I am willing to be that if some asset thief managed to get inside your organization and oust you that you would be just as pissed off as an inventor who is being defrauded of their property.
Again, Ronald, this was already explained to you. Everything on Techdirt is public domain. We have focused on building a business model based on things that *cannot* be taken or copied. That you and your friends have chosen bad business models is really your own fault, don’t you think?
Re: Re: Re:2 Mikey is a shill
“Everything on Techdirt is public domain”
Except the domain name techdirt.com itself
How come if public wants to use that domain name they can;t because Mike Masnick reserved it for himself as his “property” ?
Give up techdirt.com domain name, Mikey, or you don’t have any fucking moral right to talk about taking inventor’s property for public good
Now I expect some gibberish about scarce and non-scarce goodies and other BS like that
Tell it to your grandma, Mikey
Re: Re: Re:3 Mikey is a shill
How come if public wants to use that domain name they can;t because Mike Masnick reserved it for himself as his “property” ?
Angry dude, this has been explained to you before, so I don’t quite understand the reasoning in bringing it up again, other than to suggest that you are completely clueless about basic concepts.
Any domain name is, automatically, a scarce good, because it can only point to a single site. You can’t “public domain” something that is scarce. And, yes, a domain name is property because of that inherent scarcity.
We have no problem at all with property rights on scarce goods.
The problem only comes in when people try to put fences on ideas.
Give up techdirt.com domain name, Mikey, or you don’t have any fucking moral right to talk about taking inventor’s property for public good
Sure we do. Just because you can’t understand basic economics…
Now I expect some gibberish about scarce and non-scarce goodies and other BS like that
Tell it to your grandma, Mikey
Thanks. My grandmother just passed away.
But at least she was smart enough to understand basic economics. I would suggest that you find an econ professor and ask him about the “gibberish” about scarce and non-scarce goods. It might help you out a bit. Just like we tried to do, and instead you insult my dead grandmother?
You are a sick, sick individual.
Re: Re: Re:4 Mikey is a shill
Sorry about mentioning your grandma.
How was I supposed to know that she just passed away ?
And NO, I’m not sick
Quite normal indeed, a middle-class middle-aged naturalized American citizen in good health, with wifie, kids, house etc and respect from coworkers
It just makes me furuious when someone like you who never made a single creative contribution to society wants to socialize contributions made by other more creative folks who spend countless unpaid hours laboring in their home offices or garages on the next big thing
You are un-American, Mikey
I suggest you move to China
compromize
In nature, the loose it or use it is a law and patent law could benefit from that logic but the fat cats will fight that so lets compromize. If someone is not using a claim in their patent then they cannot sue for infringement.
Uniqueness Test
How about this:
Each patent idea, the patent application reduced to a specification or problem definition, should be submitted to a panel of experts in that field. If they come up with the same basic design as a solution, it fails the uniqueness and/or obviousness test and is not approved.