Posts Tagged: "the economist"

Like a lemming running off a cliff, Fortune author Jeff John Roberts ignores easily verifiable historical truths in what can really only be described as a hit piece on the patent system and patents in general. The lack of intellectual integrity, or even intellectual curiosity, is astonishing… It is absolutely necessary to quash any suggestion that here is a “short supply” of medical miracles today. Medical research is still turning up incredible findings. A quick scan of health news shows plenty of academic innovation leading to tomorrow’s medical miracles. That the author could make such an utterly absurd statement has to call into question the broader motivations. Of course, authors do unfortunately sometimes exaggerate, misrepresent and even lie. What is truly astonishing is how the Editors of Fortune allowed such a falsehood to be published. Do they do no fact checking at all at Fortune?

The majority shareholder of The Economist Group, the company responsible for publication of The Economist, owns patents. It seems very odd to us that most of the shareholder capital going into a publication that decries patents is coming from organizations who aggressively protect their own innovations through patents. This latest Economist episode has to raise an eyebrow, particularly as the U.S. Congress is soon set to return from the long August recess. Was this Economist article planted with the express purpose of breathing life into what is an increasingly lifeless push for additional patent reform?

The patent system is not a tool for entrenched interests to stifle competition, as so many professors seem to believe. Patents allow independent inventors and small companies to compete against better funded rivals, who would otherwise simply take away their inventions. Sadly, many publications, including The Economist, base anti-patent articles on the ill-conceived notions of academics. Alas, perhaps one reason our nation is in such distress is that so many policies are based on recommendations from those without any practical experience.

In what can only be characterized as a bizarre, rambling, and intellectually dishonest article, ‘The Economist’ has inexplicably taken the position that patents are not necessary for innovation. The complexity of innovation today and the required investment necessary to innovate, as well as the highly speculative nature of innovation, seems lost on the author. It is surprising, and disappointing, that a publication like The Economist would turn a blind-eye to the underlying financial realities of innovation. Truthfully, The Economist owes its readers a sincere apology for this entire article. Some could, and probably should, call into question the motivations for building an anti-patent argument upon such a rotten foundation.