Hostile Environment For Inventors Harms Our Economy
"Whether we continue to lead the world in software, or we are displaced by China is now uncertain. In
stark contrast to the U.S., China and the rest of the world have been strengthening the Exclusive Right
and the Presumption of Validity for patents in their respective countries. 46
These positive changes are
stimulating innovation in those countries and growing their economies. The U.S., unfortunately, is going
in the opposite direction. We are weakening patent protection. Today, we have more companies going
out of business than starting up for the first time in our history. If we continue down this anti-patent
road, the U.S. will no longer lead. China will.
Congress, the administration and the courts all see that the patent system as broken. They are right. It
is broken. But not for the reasons they think it is broken. The facts have been hijacked by the loud
impermeable voices of those who benefit from weak patent rights. Those negatively affected, the
inventors and the American public, cannot get a word in edgewise. If we continue to enact broad
changes under the misguided “patent troll” arguments, we can expect even greater damage to our
economy and our standing in the world.
We must go the other way. We must stop the further weakening of the U.S. patent system. Congress
must pass laws negating the effects of eBay vs. MercExchange so that a patent is again an Exclusive
Right. The Presumption of Validity must also be restored by eliminating PGO’s and other provisions of
the AIA. The misguided “abstract idea” category of patentable subject matter must be eliminated
altogether. Lastly, the PTO must be fully funded and better managed.
Without these changes – setting it back to what it was just a decade ago – we will become like all other
countries – unexceptional. Someone else will lead future technology revolutions. Perhaps that country
will be China and our generation will be known for the greatest blunder in history."
stark contrast to the U.S., China and the rest of the world have been strengthening the Exclusive Right
and the Presumption of Validity for patents in their respective countries. 46
These positive changes are
stimulating innovation in those countries and growing their economies. The U.S., unfortunately, is going
in the opposite direction. We are weakening patent protection. Today, we have more companies going
out of business than starting up for the first time in our history. If we continue down this anti-patent
road, the U.S. will no longer lead. China will.
Congress, the administration and the courts all see that the patent system as broken. They are right. It
is broken. But not for the reasons they think it is broken. The facts have been hijacked by the loud
impermeable voices of those who benefit from weak patent rights. Those negatively affected, the
inventors and the American public, cannot get a word in edgewise. If we continue to enact broad
changes under the misguided “patent troll” arguments, we can expect even greater damage to our
economy and our standing in the world.
We must go the other way. We must stop the further weakening of the U.S. patent system. Congress
must pass laws negating the effects of eBay vs. MercExchange so that a patent is again an Exclusive
Right. The Presumption of Validity must also be restored by eliminating PGO’s and other provisions of
the AIA. The misguided “abstract idea” category of patentable subject matter must be eliminated
altogether. Lastly, the PTO must be fully funded and better managed.
Without these changes – setting it back to what it was just a decade ago – we will become like all other
countries – unexceptional. Someone else will lead future technology revolutions. Perhaps that country
will be China and our generation will be known for the greatest blunder in history."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
really are screwed up!
how did we get this way? . seems like the Thomas
Edisons, the Teslas and the Wrights might have taught
us something ....... -- j
Novel way to slice carrots could save a company millions by maximizing product output and cutting costs
Only honest debate is allowed here.
Property as "creation" fails to account for a lot of property -- gifts, for example, in which the receiver had no part in their creation -- yet who disputes the receiver is the proper owner? Or found objects.
A pioneer finds a lake and an apple tree. He declares the area his property and takes the fish and picks the apples. His property claim is indeed based on monopolization and not on creation. Creation can be a source of property, but it is ultimately monopolization that defines property.
I do have a question, however. To what level of triviality should patent protection be available? Should a chef be able to patent a new way of cutting carrots, then be able to sue any other restaurant whose chefs have independently devised the same method? Should a retailer be able to patent a business concept of a "limited satisfaction guarantee, refunding 80% of the purchase price if the item is returned in as-new condition within 30 days"?
This, to me, is where the real debate lies - the level of triviality permitted, and the likelihood of numerous others creating the same invention independently simply by doing their jobs.
Property Rights are not based on scarcity, they are based on creation. The law is recognizing that metaphysical fact that you are the creator. Your analogy fails as your property rights in your tree are not unlimited either, you cannot carve it into a club and beat other people over the head with it.
Your and the Austrians' weak excuse for stealing other people's creations is morally reprehensible.
This is not a site for irrational Austrians it is a site to explore the ideas of Ayn Rand. Here is what she had to say about property rights and patents.
"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; "
"What the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence."
Patents and Copyrights,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130
Also see "Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort."
Note the Austrians' attempt to ignore the inventor created the real value and justify being second handers.
I own a tree, but you tell me I can't carve it into a shape you've already patented. I've lost the control of my physical property -- intellectual property necessarily infringes real property rights.