I'm no fan of that ridiculous trope "information wants to be free."
But as a lawyer, Turow ought to know that for the first 100 years of U.S. copyright law, the courts protected rampant piracy of European texts, and considered the public domain the heavy priority over the rights of authors (in stark contrast to the way patent law protected inventors, btw)
This from the first copyright law in 1790: ?Nothing in this act shall be construed to extend to prohibit the importation or vending, reprinting or publishing within the United States, of any map, chart, book or books by any person not a citizen of the United States.?
Even a century later, in Koppel v. Downing, the court said this: ?The primary object of [copyright] is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, thereby benefitting the public, and as a means to that end and as a secondary object, to secure exclusive rights to authors.?
Things have changed, of course, with the rights of authors much more strongly protected nowadays (too strongly, many feel, in the length of the term of copyright).
But Turow ought to know his own patriotic history before he tries slinging it at others.
Regarding the role of independent inventors, it's worth noting that the Founders of our country very deliberately set out to construct a patent system that would stimulate the inventive genius of the common man.
Unlike the British patent system, which charged exorbitant application fees equal to 10 times the annual per capita income of its average citizen, U.S. patent fees were reduced to a level that even ordinary workers and farmers could afford. Administrative procedures were also simplified. And through a host of other means as well -- including allowing anyone applying for a patent by mail to do so postage free -- the patent system encouraged innovation on a mass scale.
The results were immediate and dramatic -- as Thomas Jefferson put it, the new American patent system "has given a spring to invention beyond my conception." Only 13 years after the first patent law was enacted by Congress, the United States had already surpassed Britain -- until then the acknowledged leader in the industrial revolution -- in the number of new inventions patented. By the 1860s, the number of new inventions patented in the U.S. was an astonishing seven times the number in Britain.
One very important reason for this dramatic surge in American innovation, of course, was the fact that by design the American patent system encouraged a much broader range of creative individuals to take part in inventive activity than was the case in Britain or other Old World countries. Whereas most British inventors were of privileged status, the vast majority of America's new inventors came from humble beginnings -- farmers, factory workers, carpenters and other artisans for the most part.
According to the economists Kenneth L. Sokoloff and B. Zorina Khan, who studied patent records and biographical data from the period, nearly 70 percent of the 160 "great inventors" of the 19th century had only a primary or secondary school education. Half had little or no formal schooling at all. And many of the most famous names in American invention -- men such as Matthias Baldwin (the locomotive), George Eastman (roll film), Elias Howe (the sewing machine), and Thomas Edison (the electric light and the phonograph) -- had to quit school at an early age to help support their families.
But the American patent system did not simply encourage the masses to participate in inventive activity. It made it economically feasible for them to do so. Indeed, by granting secure property rights to inventions for a limited time, the patent system enabled innovators to make a full-time career of invention through the licensing of their discoveries. This in turn created the a national market for technology innovation -- the world's first -- which proved critical to powering America's emerging industrial economy to a position of world dominance by the end of the 19th century.
As Abraham Lincoln (himself a patentee) noted, the brilliance of the U.S. patent system was that it "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that most European nations amended their patent laws to match at least some of the innovation-enhancing character of the American system. It was this hundred-year lead in democratizing our patent system, more than any supposed special ingenuity of the American people, that made the United States the "arsenal of democracy" in the 20th century and the economic powerhouse that we are today.
The independent inventor's role in national innovation went into decline between the 1930s and 1980s when large-scale in-house corporate R&D dominated the scene. But there is good evidence that with today's increasingly rapid and fragmented nature of technology development -- along with the rise of Open Source and "Open Innovation" development -- the independent inventor is gaining new importance in innovation.
Given the emergence of new kinds of intermediaries between independent inventors and corporate licensing arms, I wouldn't be surprised to see the re-creation of a viable independent marketplace for independent invention in the next 5-10 years.
Today's litigation rate is .0018% of all the 1.7 million ACTIVE patents, not issued patents. Likewise, the 2% litigation rate of the late 1800s applied to active rather than issued patents.
The need for some sort of sensible patent reform is real, and periodic reform has always been part of a healthy U.S. patent system that truly promotes innovation.
In fact, whenever the United States has undergone a major industrial renaissance -- such as occurred during the 19th century when first steam and then later the telegraph, telephone and electric power industries emerged -- patenting rates have skyrocketed, as have concerns about a resulting decline in patent quality and an increase in patent litigation.
As Senator John Ruggles noted in 1836: "The quality of patents has suffered, many are neither novel nor useful. And the courts are overwhelmed by patent infringement and validity suits."
Boy, does that sound familiar or what?
In any event, in 1836, and again in 1870, Congress reformed the patent system to better enable it to meet the challenges created by new technologies and new industries. Examination became more thorough and more strict, and requirements for novelty and non-obviousness did likewise.
Today's renaissance boom in information age technology has once again strained our patent system. Patent quality has suffered and litigation rates have risen -- although at .0018% of all issued patents they are still far below the litigation rate of 2% of all issued patents which prevailed during the patent heyday of the late 1800s.
The simple fact is that the PTO does not have the resources or technological skills to respond to the three-fold increase in patent applications over the past 20 years.
Hence the need once again for reforms to help the patent system meet the challenges of today's new technologies and new industries.
The fact that competing interests (e.g., big companies vs. small inventors) are fighting over certain proposed reforms does not diminish the overall need for sensible reform.
By the way, patent licensing is NOT the same thing as investors buying up patents for the express purpose of litigation. Licensing in the 1800s is precisely what created the world's first national marketplace for independent invention, which all large firms relied on for their internal R&D needs until early in the 20th century when legal and other changes enabled large firms to hire a permanent staff of inventors and own the work that these inventors created.
And incidentally, licensing is increasingly becoming a vehicle for collaboration between firms (i.e., "open innovation") rather than strictly a money machine. According to a recent Economist Intelligence Unit report, 68% of European firms now say their primary innovation strategy is to increase collaboration with other firms via licensing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dkline.
Copyright's Real History
I'm no fan of that ridiculous trope "information wants to be free."
But as a lawyer, Turow ought to know that for the first 100 years of U.S. copyright law, the courts protected rampant piracy of European texts, and considered the public domain the heavy priority over the rights of authors (in stark contrast to the way patent law protected inventors, btw)
This from the first copyright law in 1790: ?Nothing in this act shall be construed to extend to prohibit the importation or vending, reprinting or publishing within the United States, of any map, chart, book or books by any person not a citizen of the United States.?
Even a century later, in Koppel v. Downing, the court said this: ?The primary object of [copyright] is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, thereby benefitting the public, and as a means to that end and as a secondary object, to secure exclusive rights to authors.?
Things have changed, of course, with the rights of authors much more strongly protected nowadays (too strongly, many feel, in the length of the term of copyright).
But Turow ought to know his own patriotic history before he tries slinging it at others.
So the head of president obama's jobs council is GE's CEO -- probably the number one outsourcers of American jobs.
Check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576542820083918028.html?KEYWORDS=Nothhaft
Regarding the role of independent inventors, it's worth noting that the Founders of our country very deliberately set out to construct a patent system that would stimulate the inventive genius of the common man.
Unlike the British patent system, which charged exorbitant application fees equal to 10 times the annual per capita income of its average citizen, U.S. patent fees were reduced to a level that even ordinary workers and farmers could afford. Administrative procedures were also simplified. And through a host of other means as well -- including allowing anyone applying for a patent by mail to do so postage free -- the patent system encouraged innovation on a mass scale.
The results were immediate and dramatic -- as Thomas Jefferson put it, the new American patent system "has given a spring to invention beyond my conception." Only 13 years after the first patent law was enacted by Congress, the United States had already surpassed Britain -- until then the acknowledged leader in the industrial revolution -- in the number of new inventions patented. By the 1860s, the number of new inventions patented in the U.S. was an astonishing seven times the number in Britain.
One very important reason for this dramatic surge in American innovation, of course, was the fact that by design the American patent system encouraged a much broader range of creative individuals to take part in inventive activity than was the case in Britain or other Old World countries. Whereas most British inventors were of privileged status, the vast majority of America's new inventors came from humble beginnings -- farmers, factory workers, carpenters and other artisans for the most part.
According to the economists Kenneth L. Sokoloff and B. Zorina Khan, who studied patent records and biographical data from the period, nearly 70 percent of the 160 "great inventors" of the 19th century had only a primary or secondary school education. Half had little or no formal schooling at all. And many of the most famous names in American invention -- men such as Matthias Baldwin (the locomotive), George Eastman (roll film), Elias Howe (the sewing machine), and Thomas Edison (the electric light and the phonograph) -- had to quit school at an early age to help support their families.
But the American patent system did not simply encourage the masses to participate in inventive activity. It made it economically feasible for them to do so. Indeed, by granting secure property rights to inventions for a limited time, the patent system enabled innovators to make a full-time career of invention through the licensing of their discoveries. This in turn created the a national market for technology innovation -- the world's first -- which proved critical to powering America's emerging industrial economy to a position of world dominance by the end of the 19th century.
As Abraham Lincoln (himself a patentee) noted, the brilliance of the U.S. patent system was that it "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that most European nations amended their patent laws to match at least some of the innovation-enhancing character of the American system. It was this hundred-year lead in democratizing our patent system, more than any supposed special ingenuity of the American people, that made the United States the "arsenal of democracy" in the 20th century and the economic powerhouse that we are today.
The independent inventor's role in national innovation went into decline between the 1930s and 1980s when large-scale in-house corporate R&D dominated the scene. But there is good evidence that with today's increasingly rapid and fragmented nature of technology development -- along with the rise of Open Source and "Open Innovation" development -- the independent inventor is gaining new importance in innovation.
Given the emergence of new kinds of intermediaries between independent inventors and corporate licensing arms, I wouldn't be surprised to see the re-creation of a viable independent marketplace for independent invention in the next 5-10 years.
Correction
A correction to my post above:
Today's litigation rate is .0018% of all the 1.7 million ACTIVE patents, not issued patents. Likewise, the 2% litigation rate of the late 1800s applied to active rather than issued patents.
Sorry for the error.
Patent Reform
The need for some sort of sensible patent reform is real, and periodic reform has always been part of a healthy U.S. patent system that truly promotes innovation.
In fact, whenever the United States has undergone a major industrial renaissance -- such as occurred during the 19th century when first steam and then later the telegraph, telephone and electric power industries emerged -- patenting rates have skyrocketed, as have concerns about a resulting decline in patent quality and an increase in patent litigation.
As Senator John Ruggles noted in 1836: "The quality of patents has suffered, many are neither novel nor useful. And the courts are overwhelmed by patent infringement and validity suits."
Boy, does that sound familiar or what?
In any event, in 1836, and again in 1870, Congress reformed the patent system to better enable it to meet the challenges created by new technologies and new industries. Examination became more thorough and more strict, and requirements for novelty and non-obviousness did likewise.
Today's renaissance boom in information age technology has once again strained our patent system. Patent quality has suffered and litigation rates have risen -- although at .0018% of all issued patents they are still far below the litigation rate of 2% of all issued patents which prevailed during the patent heyday of the late 1800s.
The simple fact is that the PTO does not have the resources or technological skills to respond to the three-fold increase in patent applications over the past 20 years.
Hence the need once again for reforms to help the patent system meet the challenges of today's new technologies and new industries.
The fact that competing interests (e.g., big companies vs. small inventors) are fighting over certain proposed reforms does not diminish the overall need for sensible reform.
By the way, patent licensing is NOT the same thing as investors buying up patents for the express purpose of litigation. Licensing in the 1800s is precisely what created the world's first national marketplace for independent invention, which all large firms relied on for their internal R&D needs until early in the 20th century when legal and other changes enabled large firms to hire a permanent staff of inventors and own the work that these inventors created.
And incidentally, licensing is increasingly becoming a vehicle for collaboration between firms (i.e., "open innovation") rather than strictly a money machine. According to a recent Economist Intelligence Unit report, 68% of European firms now say their primary innovation strategy is to increase collaboration with other firms via licensing.