Bad Ideas: Globalizing The Patent System

from the this-won't-end-well dept

It's pretty clear that Microsoft's patent boss, Horacio Gutierrez, and I don't agree on much, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that I find nothing to like in Gutierrez's new call for "global patents." I can understand where the complaint comes from. It surely is a pain to have to apply for a patent in many different countries around the world, and to deal with different local systems and responses. And, yes, there is a big backlog at the patent office, which could be alleviated if many patent offices weren't all reviewing the same patents. But, having different patent systems actually serves an important function in better understanding the levers of innovation: which is that we get to compare different approaches and that different countries can try out different ideas to see what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, we've already lost some of that uniqueness around the world due to the TRIPS agreement, which harmonized many patent systems on certain points, and took away some of the unique features of patent systems.

We've already seen that in "harmonizing" copyrights thanks to the Berne Convention that it's been made much more difficult for countries to correct mistakes (or even admit mistakes) with overly aggressive copyright laws. In fact, it's created a situation where the only direction copyright law seems to go is towards stronger protection -- almost always under claims of a need to "live up to international treaties." If we created a single global patent system, you'd have that problem on steroids. Rather than being able to experiment and cut back on the excesses and problems of the patent system, the entire world would be stuck with a single system, and any changes to the regulations would be driven by those who benefit most from being able to abuse such monopoly rights.

Filed Under: globalized, horacio gutierrez, patents


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Sep 2009 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I like your ideas, but I would apprecaite the opportunity to inject some additional Helmetastic regulations/ideas:

    1. The democratically elected court constructed of 9 justices called the Supreme Legislation Review Court: It's sole purpose would be to investigate laws passed to retroactively determine that they are not unconstitutional, were not created with undue favor to business/industry, and that all sponsors of the bills they are based on can pass a test on the intricacies of the law (the test would be 10 questions long for every 200 words in the bill). If any of the tree criteria are not met/passed, the law is tossed and we go back to the drawing board for them to try again.

    2. An additional constitutional amendment stating that if an elected official or official directly appointed by an official can be proven to have 3 times demonstrably lied to Congress, their constituents, and/or a member of he media within a year, they are immediately disbanned from their position and are not allowed in government for 5 years.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.