Posts Tagged: "patent incentive"

Assuming America wants paradigm-shifting, truly disruptive innovation we need to recognize the need to incentivize the risk-takers and those that provide the capital to those risk-takers who dare to challenge the status quo. This means policies, laws and rules that foster innovative activities from smaller entities who are most likely to innovate. With an eye toward policies, laws, rules and actions that would most benefit innovators, their endeavors more attractive to investors and more feasible to pursue, the U.S. should adopt policies, laws, rules and actions including…

Wouldn’t it be a great world if people innovated for the sake of innovating, spending every waking moment in the pursuit of solutions and inventions that would better mankind? Wouldn’t it be a great world if investors, the top 1% and the richest corporations would invest hundreds of millions of dollars, even multiple billions of dollars, and fund the many years of arduous work from large teams of scientists and engineers necessary to achieve paradigm shifting innovation? In such an idealized world innovation would happen just because— well because it would just happen. But that isn’t a patent strategy, or a national innovation strategy either.

Protecting innovation through patents is the lifeblood of the global pharmaceutical industry. Without patents the world and its expanding population would be deprived of new and, ultimately, affordable life-saving medicines. Nevertheless, the high profitability of pharma companies has prompted an increasingly widespread (and often ill-informed) political debate on patents. This is not just because of mounting health costs but also the lack of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries. But this argument on the alleged high costs caused by patents falls short because most patents for essential medicines on the World Health Organization (WHO) list are expired and are available at generic medicine prices. Even so, patients in countries where they are most needed do not have access to generics. And the reasons for this are multiple, not least inadequate, poorly-funded healthcare systems.

The effects of proposed Rule 11 on the patent system will be like putting an additional bullet to a dying man. As far as patent litigation is concerned, the pending rule is intended to deliver what was missed in the AIA: shifting fees from infringers to patent owners.

Whether one celebrates or decries the PTAB, there can be little doubt that it has worked a profound effect on the value of American patents—and, concomitantly, on incentives to invest in research and development… Compared to their judicial counterparts, PTAB judges are biased in favor of invalidity. Personnel differences also explain a more disturbing phenomenon, mainly, that the Patent and Trademark Office seems to be at war with itself. Frequently, the PTAB invalidates claims based on prior art that examiners considered during initial prosecution. The only explanation for such discordant outcomes is that PTO examiners take a more pro-patent view of validity than the judges who make up the PTAB.

America innovates most when property rights are stable and government gets out of the way so risk takers can dream the impossible and then go accomplish those dreams… The patent system all three branches of our government has created over the last 12 years has increasingly incentivized the stealing of patent rights rather than engaging in an arm length negotiation with innovators who possess patent rights that are supposed to be statutorily presumed valid. This is antithetical to basic, fundamental principles embedded throughout American law, and basic economic principles. Laws are supposed to be certain, stable and understandable. When that occurs externalities and transaction costs are low, which allows for the bargaining of rights to ensue.

Typically, the reform debate over the U.S. patent system features smaller players, but America’s largest tech firms also have issues with the patent system, which go way beyond any single company’s ability to sustain success… Leading off the panel’s remarks was Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel for IBM, who noted that innovation is a risk-bearing operation. “The likelihood that you ever make an investment [into research & development] is based on the return you anticipate on getting in that investment,” Schecter said. Any reduction to the anticipated return caused by uncertainty in IP policy discourages R&D investment. Schecter added that one of the ways in which intellectual property promotes innovation is by preventing others from taking innovations which are not their own. “We want to minimize or control uncertainty in the IP space if we want to maintain an IP surplus and promote the viability of the economy,” he said.

We pick up our conversation with me suggesting that there is a problem with claims being found to be abstract when the decision maker has been able to do a complete 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) analysis. We then move on to discuss the meaning of “innovation,” whether innovation leads to patents or patents lead to innovation, and briefly touch on a long-time disagreement about whether patents are property rights. … LEVY: “Uncertainty I agree makes businesses nervous. That’s obvious. But, and again, I’m speaking only for myself here, it seems to me that for many businesses there is a desire to have the benefits of taking the risk without the down side of taking the risk. And one of the downsides here is that the law can change. Patents are not — even if we didn’t change the law patents are no guarantee of anything. Once you get an issued patent that patent could be found invalid. It’s in the law that a patent can be challenged and that I can be found invalid. So no one should think that once I have this patent that’s it, it’s good for all time and I can take on all comers and they’re going to have to pay me regardless. I have heard too many time people thinking that this is some sort of guarantee and any sort of challenge is a violation of their Constitutional rights.”

The old arguments that patents inhibit innovation, and non-exclusivity with compulsory licensing leads to a brave new world are now in vogue. We’ve stood at this fork in the road before. It requires courage to reject the easy path downward and restore the system which created our prosperity. If we lack the will, we have no one else to blame as we plunge deeper into the mire. That’s the last place anyone wanting to drain the swamp while growing the economy should go.

These government agencies target successful, inventive U.S. firms. They politicize their processes and disregard the exclusivity that rightfully belongs to patent owners. They take away private property from the creators and give it to favored domestic companies like Samsung and Huawei, which apparently lack the smarts to win fair and square in market-based competition or by ingenuity. It’s time that America put an end to these threats, foreign and domestic. Either you believe in property rights and free enterprise or you don’t… In essence, Chinese, South Korean and FTC officials demand the benefits produced by free markets and property rights for free from American innovators in mobile technology, who took all the risk and made investments in research and development.

Individual inventors, not just corporations, should be able to benefit from the fruits of the inventive mind. The limited private right of a patent is a necessary reward to fuel innovation, something recognized in the Constitution and by both President Washington and President Lincoln. Corporations in their quest to eliminate all patent challenges by delegitimizing the entire patent system have created this crisis, all to protect their bottom line and thwart competition. In time, just as the birds in Carson’s book, inventors will be silenced and innovation will suffer.

The consequences of a weakened patent system are increased inequality, a higher competitive bar for market entrants, protection of incumbent monopoly profits, decreased competition, disincentive to invest in innovation by both small entities that have higher costs and large companies that can free ride, declining productivity growth, slower employment and wage growth and economic malaise… With less incentive to invent or invest in innovation, it should be no surprise that in a weak patent regime, productivity growth has declined precipitously and economic growth is substantially reduced.

It is almost impossible to believe this report is the work product of the Obama Administration. The section on patents, which begins on page 134, reads like a cross between a Monty Python skit and a Soviet era, propaganda laden news report. Perhaps the Obama Administration is trying to rewrite history and brainwash the entire industry into believing that President Obama has been a tremendous defender of the U.S. patent system. Simply stated, the Obama Administration can write all they want about the importance of the patent system and how patents are critically important for innovation, but the reality is that the future of American innovation has been forfeited (or at least heavily mortgaged) by a calculated, intentional, and willful dismantling of the U.S. patent system for the benefit a handful of politically well connected companies that helped President Obama get elected and then re-elected.

Now that Trump has won, the discussion has narrowed to whether Trump will keep patents weak or make patents great again. From the outside perspective, it is a curious exercise to say the least… Why are we even asking these questions? Property is property, right? Can you remember an election where people were asking if their deed would keep squatters out of their living room depending on who won the presidency? I don’t. It seems a preposterous question. After all, the deed on your house is a property right and everybody knows the government will back it up and eject the squatters. So why then do we, or should we, have to ask whether a Trump Administration will be in favor of strong patent rights? It all seems bizarre to say the least.