Posts Tagged: "economic growth"

While all nations have a great deal to gain from attracting foreign direct investment and research spending from multinational firms, developing nations in particular stand to gain tremendously. These investments create jobs, enhance productivity, and foster economic growth and development. However, robust intellectual property rights are a necessary prerequisite. The activists and government policymakers who claim that IP rights are a barrier to economic development have it backwards. Strong intellectual property rights incentivize innovation which facilitates economic growth and development.

Tech sector giants have been crying and moaning about how the patent system has run amok and needs to be scaled back, and continually beg for patent reform that would gut the patent system and weaken patent rights… Even mighty Microsoft couldn’t maintain their monopoly, and only the foolish would anticipate Google, Facebook and other tech giants to be on top indefinitely. That isn’t how the tech sector works, or is intended to work. But if a vibrant, robust and strong patent system is not there for start-ups today they will never become the giant, innovation shifting, growth companies of the future. That would be terrible for the economy, lead to stagnant innovation and guarantee that slothful, giant companies that have lost the ability to innovate would remain dominant rather than going the way of the dinosaur.

In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Amy Kapczynski argues that the Supreme Court of India’s strict interpretation of the country’s new patent law provides a model to be followed by other countries. Kapczynski applauds this “Patent Law 2.0” and argues that it will enhance access to medicines and may improve pharmaceutical innovation. Unfortunately she is wrong on both counts. Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act forbids the patenting of new forms of known drugs unless the new form significantly enhances efficacy and yields therapeutic benefits. Accordingly, much of the incremental innovation that is done on existing treatments will no longer be patentable under the so-called Patent Law 2.0. These are not issues considered by Kapczynski. Astonishingly, she interprets the impact of this law as follows, “Provisions like Section 3(d) can help reverse this effect [prioritizing incremental innovation over breakthrough drug discovery] and encourage companies to undertake the riskier and more expensive research that is required to generate breakthrough drugs.” Her analysis is strikingly naïve. It is laughable to think that weaker intellectual property rights (IPR) protection will incentivize innovative pharmaceutical firms to expend more resources and take on greater risk.

But how could Universities ever be characterized as non-practicing entities in the first place? If we are going to be intellectually honest there is no way you can characterize Universities as non-practicing entities. University innovations have laid the foundation for thousands of startup companies since 1980; in fact well in excess of 7,000 startup companies have been formed. These startup companies are not just high-tech companies, they are the highest tech companies based on the most cutting edge research and innovation our country has to offer. These companies are not imaginary or mythical, but rather they are real, tangible and operating companies; they exist! These startup companies are also U.S. formed companies that are located in the U.S. and employ U.S. workers. Now that is a jobs plan if I ever saw one!

One of the more indelible images of the civil rights movement are those from the Spring of 1968 as Black sanitation workers went on strike in Memphis, Tennessee holding signs that read “I am a Man,” in their fight for economic equality. (This is the reason that civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was visiting Memphis when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968.) Now those signs should not only read “I am a Man Who Thinks,” but “I am a Man Who Thinks and My Thoughts are Valuable.” Thus, a skillful IP attorney can be a modern day civil rights attorney by aiding Blacks to create IP rights in order to preserve their exclusive right to economically exploit the fruits of their creativity.

At his speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Commerce Secretary Bryson outlined his top three priorities to help American businesses “build it here and sell it everywhere,” focusing on supporting advanced manufacturing, increasing our exports, and attracting more investment to America from all over the world. The key to emerging from the Great Recession is, of course, manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs have left the U.S. in favor of more business friendly climates in other countries, taking with them U.S. jobs and U.S. intellectual property. But moving into a Presidential election year will government be able to do anything that is at all likely to help?

Innovation and entrepreneurship are central pillars of America’s economic strength and critical vehicles for job creation. Reporter John Schmid of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote an article that was published on Sunday, January 16, 2011, aptly depicting the problems facing would-be job creators. Schmid wrote in part of his article about a professor from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who needed 11 years to obtain a patent on his revolutionary invention. How many jobs were lost as a result of unacceptably slow processing by the Patent Office?

According to Pascal Levensohn, Managing Partner of Levensohn Venture Partners, the problem with the US economy is the lack of Initial Public Offerings. He opines that without an increase in IPOs in the United States it will be difficult, if not impossible, to see the economic growth that we want. Without economic growth there will be no job creation, and the sluggish US economy will continue on its anemic path. He suggests that the best way to increase IPOs is to increase venture capital and make it more attractive. He writes that is our leaders really wanted to fix the job problem in America “there would be no higher legislative priority than promoting regulatory and tax reform to stimulate new capital formation and venture capital in the U.S.”