Clvr.Tv
Rss Feed
Linkedin button

Election Predictions: What It Means for Patents, Startups, and the Economy


Election Predictions: What It Means for Patents, Startups, and the Economy

It would be quaint and naïve to believe that patent law and the patent system is unaffected by politics.  Since I am neither, let’s examine how the election results will affect patents, startups, and the economy?

Election Predictions

President: Romney.  Romney will win most of the swing states and maybe pick up a state or two that he is not expected to win.  Unfortunately, Romney is like to be George Bush III

Senate: Controlled by the Republicans 52-48

House: Controlled by the Republicans.  Republicans 240  Democrats 195

 

Patent System

President Obama was a mixed bag for the patent system.  The most positive thing under Obama was putting a patent attorney in charge of the patent system and firing the traitorous Jon Dudas appointed by Bush.  On the other hand David Kappos is a standard Crony Capitalist selection.  He came from a large company (IBM), promoted large company interests, including the incredibly corrupt, pork laden America Invents Act.  (I will not repeat the damning facts of the AIA here, since I have written about them extensively)

President Obama also supported the AIA, which is consistent with his support of Crony Capitalism.  The Supreme Court judges he appointed have displayed the usual ignorance of patents and property rights.  However, Republican appointees have only been marginally better, if at all, when it comes to understanding patents.

President Romney is unlikely to change this situation significantly.  Remember Paul Ryan was the one who gutted the anti-fee diversion part of the AIA.  Romney will probably appoint more pro-property rights judges to the Supreme Court, but even many of these are unlikely to understand patents or that they are property rights.  If we are very lucky, Romney will appoint judges along the vein of Richard A. Epstein (He is now too old).

Legislatively it is very unlikely that anything on the patent front will occur.

It has been rumored that Romney may appoint Darrel Issa to head the Patent Office.  This would likely be a disaster.  Mr. Issa has been a bull dog in fighting Fast and Furious and other Obama administration cover ups.  He also is an inventor.  But he supported the AIA, supported large company interests in patent issues, and clearly does not understand patent law.  If Mr. Issa wins reelection, which is projected to do, I would be very surprised if he would step down to take the Patent Office position.  President Romney should appoint a patent attorney who has had extensive contact with startups and individual inventors.  These are the groups (according to an SBA study I have mentioned multiple times) that create most of the revolutionary new technologies.

Bottom Line: If we are lucky the patent system will not deteriorate too much under Romney.  One bright spot is that the Tea Party generally considered the “First to Invent” provisions of the AIA unconstitutional.

Technology Startups

There are three or four policies specific to startups that are critical if we are ever going to see the USA lead in technological innovation again.  One is that we need a strong patent system.  That is discussed above.  Second we need the repeal of Sarbanes Oxley and probably Dodd Frank also.  I am afraid Romney and the Republicans will be happy with half measures like the JOBS Act.  Third, we need stock options to not be expensed and a return to “pooling of interest” accounting for mergers.  I seriously doubt the Republicans will take up either of these issues.

Bottom Line: Romney will make things marginally better for technology startups.  Mr. Romney came from the private equity end of Wall Street that benefited greatly when SOX essentially killed the IPO market.

 

Economy

President Obama is an avowed Marxist/Collectivist.  It does not matter whether you think he subscribes to the anti-suburb version or the anti-colonial version or the Keynesian version or some other version for the most part.  These policies were responsible for killing over 100 million people in the last century.  How many more people have to die before people like Obama will stop pushing this nonsense?  Or at least people will laugh them off the public stage? (Yes, Obama is guilty of killing numerous people, including Benghazi – but more importantly his wealth killing policies have killed people just as surely as smoking kills people).

President Obama is also a part of the environmentalist movement.  The policies of this group killed over 100 million people in the last century.  How long will it take before people recognize people like Mr. Obama are pushing mass murder?

Good Riddance Mr. Obama, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. 

Unfortunately Mr. Romney is likely to be George Bush III – meaning he is not so much not a collectivist, he just wants to be an efficient collectivist.  Romney is not humanist, he is just a more pragmatic environmentalist.  Romney is likely to be a technocrat who is not interested in changing the system, just turning it up a little.  The problem with this is that there is likely to be a huge financial meltdown in the West and Japan very shortly.  Unless Romney takes radical steps to avoid this, it is likely to throw the US into the second leg of the second Great Depression.  Here are just some of the things Romney needs to accomplish in the next two years to avoid a financial catastrophe:

1) Reduce Federal Spending by $1 Trillion a year.  If Obama could increase the budget by a trillion per year, why can’t we roll this back.

2) Rationalize the federal tax system.  We spend $430 Billion on tax compliance and only bring in about five times that amount.

3) Restore Patents and Property Rights.  Repeal AIA, repeal Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, repeal all Supreme Court Decisions on patents since 2000, fully fund the Patent Office.  Demand that the 5th Amendment public takings apply to all government actions, including all regulatory actions and that public takings can only be for the benefit of a public purpose – specifically over ruling the KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. case.

4) Eliminate ObamaCare, put Medicare and Social Security on a sound financial basis that does not impose crushing taxes on young people.

5) Eliminate Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank

6) Repeal all the regulations created since 2000.

 

What is wrong with the USA is summarized in the chart below:




58 Comments

  1. While we fight over what you consider to be a “hoax”

    Others are plotting to kill or chill our patent system.

    For example, one “professor” writes:

    “The nonobviousness requirement should bar patents on many software innovations because low costs of innovation plus strong incentives to innovate outside the patent system create a great case for viewing many (but not all) software innovations as legally obvious and thus, unpatentable.”

    source:
    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/lets-get-rid-of-kludgy-patent-fixes-and-define-the-non-obvious/

    What say you on that one?

  2. Dale:

    Here is a video you will really like:
    The Evidence Is In Green Jobs Are a Total Waste – Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Manhattan Institute):

    http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13976/Regulating+to+Disaster+How+Green+Jobs+Policies+Are+Damaging+Americas+Economy.aspx

    Except … wait a minute … didn’t the entire Silicon Valley IC (Integrated Circuit) industry take off only thanks to those evil “government subsidies”? Facts? Who needs facts when you’ve got your ideology to cling on to?

  3. p.s. Now that we have gone past 50 comments on this post, please note that your web site tags for “Older Comments” and “Newer Comments” are linked backwards. :-)

  4. Stepback,

    Silicon valley was no more made by government subsidies than the railroads. The supposed accomplishment of the transcontinental railroad resulted in two bankrupt companies within several years of the completion. There is extensive macroeconomic evidence that the more the government spends the less economic activity the country experiences in the future. I can point you to the papers.

  5. Dale,

    Like many other evolutions and revolutions in technology. the miniaturization aspect of Silicon Valley electronics was driven by military needs and military funds; for example the need to place lighter electronic control modules on ICBM missiles. See the Secret History:
    http://steveblank.com/secret-history/

    No one disputes that the Internet had similar beginnings: a military desire for a more robust military communications system.

    Say what you want but there are many countries around the world where their “lassize faire” governments do not invest in educating the young in science and math, do not invest in start up technologies, and the glorious results of such true “hands off” government policy shows.

  6. Stepback,

    Please provide actual facts not anecdotes – there is no macroeconomic evidence for either of you positions, but there is tons of evidence against it.

    Having worked in the defense industry I can categorically state that just is not true. The Defense industry often used older larger size microchips because they would withstand radiation and heat better. If the electronics industry had waited on defense to push them forward we would be use 80386 processors today.

  7. I worked in DOD based facilities as well and almost always used mil spec parts :-)

  8. Yes, which were not leading edge technology.

Leave a Reply

Subscriber Count

    17

Advertise Here

Your Ad

could be right

HERE

find out how

Donations

Coming Soon