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 4.
On the other hand (lawyer) a purpose of patents is to create alternative ways to skin the cat.
2. you ignore Rand on the subject
3.you emote
4. intellectual property is based on the ideas of Locke on property and common law, and our Constitution
since you do not promote any of these important philosophical pillars, I am hiding your comments.
Learn a little about a subject before you spout off such nonsense.
You say it is the stealing of thoughts, but the flip side is the stealing of the property rights of others.
Intellectual property and physical property are mutually contradictory. The supremacy of one implies the violation of the other.
The early advocates of intellectual property saw it as a compromise, strictly for the collective benefit of society. The people would surrender some of their freedom for the benefits of rewarding inventors and writers as an encouragement to produce new works.
I believe rational people must keep in mind the conflict between intellectual property and real property.
There is no such thing as a trivial invention. Something either is an invention or it is not and under the Constitution and logic any invention is entitled to property rights - a patent.
An invention is a mental formulation by a party of:
(a) a process for manipulation of physical material or objects, and/or
(b) a physical material or object, which is:
(i) previously unknown to the party itself, and
(ii) is expressed in working demonstrable physical form (either directly by the party itself, or by another party or parties directly behalf of the first party), and
(iii) can be applied to meet needs or desires, or solve problems, for at least one party.
IANAL - I'm aware that a trained lawyer would find enough holes in this to fly an A380 Airbus through, but that's how I personally relate to 'invention'.
2. Intellectual Ventures and the value judgment of "notorious." where did this value judgement come from. The article talks at length about this. Did you read it? It was an opportunity to gain insight into how patents work, how licensing companies work, and how small inventors rely on companies like Intellectual Ventures to monetize their inventions so they can keep inventing. Inventing deserves to be a profession.
3. "The victim company just thinks:" This is also a value judgment. Why is the patent holder the bad guy in this scenario and the infringer (thief) considered a victim?
4." it's possible for one company to wheedle out of a whole industry sector a sum of money which is many times larger than the legal cost of defeating their claims. " this is exactly what large corporations depend on. For you to see paying a license for what you are stealing as a cartel demanding hush money. Inventors have a right to be paid for their production. You are anti-patent. Protecting intellectual property is an essential part of capitalism and supported by Objectivism as moral. Are you an Austrian or anarcho?
1) Any prior public use (sale in US) by another of the technology makes it unpatentable to a patent applicant. A patent applicant has to define (the claims) a novel invention. So in your example above Company A would have the patent invalidated.
2) If the inventor, A, decides to keep their invention a trade secret and a company B comes along and applies for a patent. Before the AIA (2013) A could be found to infringe a patent that issued to B. Under the present law things are bit more complicated, but roughly if A made substantial preparation to commercialize (prior use) a product incorporating the invention, he will have a limited right to practice the invention.
The article gets it wrong from the start by claiming that inventors themselves are labelled as "patent trolls", where the term much more often refers to non-inventing patent hoarding corporations such as Intellectual Ventures Inc whose business model contains zero invention and huge amounts of actively searching for (potentially) infringing behaviours.
Intellectual Ventures is notorious for litigating against companies who are using technology which could even vaguely be perceived as infringing. The process involves a cease and desist letter with threats, offering option to settle by paying a license fee. The license fee is carefully calculated to be significantly less than the legal cost the defending company would have to pay to defeat the infringement allegation in court.
The victim company just thinks: "It's cheaper to pay up than to fight for justice". They open their wallet and the problem goes away. Sadly, by this means, it's possible for one company to wheedle out of a whole industry sector a sum of money which is many times larger than the legal cost of defeating their claims.
THAT - is a patent troll.
Load more comments...