State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Halling to Appear on Ed Jones Radio Show

Dale B. Halling will be discussing the America Invents Act (H.R. 1249 & S. 23) on the Ed Jones Show on 740 KVOR .  The show runs from 7:00AM (MDT) to 8:00AM on July 2nd.  Here is the audio of the show in two parts 1edjones and 2edjones

Advertisements

July 1, 2011 - Posted by | -How to, Patents | , , ,

14 Comments »

  1. HA HA, I don’t know who Jones is, at first I thought the photo of Jones was you. After I left your home page I saw your actual photo. Your photo looks a lot younger than your writing and doesn’t give the same wise and distinguished impression that comes across in your writing. I’m not telling you what to do; just stating my reaction to this photo after only knowing you through your writing. I’m looking forward to hearing you on radio show. I don’t know how much time he’ll give you; I hope the show won’t be all about sound bites. In case anyone misses it KVOR has a page where the podcast can be downloaded http://www.kvor.com/Article.asp?id=2078717&spid=19447

    Comment by Matthew Artero | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  2. I like the change to your website. It has a lighter feeling to it. Still wish it had a search function. The comments section is not remembering my data so I have to reenter it each time.

    Comment by Matthew Artero | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  3. Matt, I tried to find Dale’s interview on the podcast you linked to but could not find it. Is there a specific time in which it clicks in?

    Dale do you have a link to your interview? Thanks

    Comment by step back | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  4. Dale,

    Mr. Steppy has started looking at some of the fine print in the bill (hr 1249) as opposed to staring at the red herring nonsense. See here: http://patentu.blogspot.com/2011/07/one-more-herring-not-red.html

    Do you know if anyone else has bothered to read the actual words in the bill? and figure out what they mean? there’s an awful lot I still can’t make heads or tails out of.

    Comment by step back | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  5. Dale, now that you have changed your website, much of what was posted earlier is no longer locatable via google search. It just says, site not found 404

    can you add a search tool to your site?

    Comment by step back | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  6. Thanks Matthew for that thoughts on the website – I will ask about a search function

    Comment by dbhalling | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  7. Step back,

    Thanks for the update. I will ask the marketing firm that is helping me.

    To my knowledge David Boundy has most closely read the details of the America Invents (not) Act).

    Comment by dbhalling | July 3, 2011 | Reply

  8. Dale, I sent you an email (mp3 attached) 😉

    Comment by step back | July 4, 2011 | Reply

  9. @ step back
    The link works. They just needed to update the download.

    @ dbhalling

    The new site also no longer has the feature that notifies us when additional comments are made.

    Thanks for being on the radio show. It definitely stimulated some thoughts with me.

    When you said the passing of a Bill back in 2000 changed what kind of businesses people are willing to start, it would have been great to hear an example as that is about the same time as the burst of the dotcom bubble and about two thirds of venture capitalists when out of business at that time. So I wonder how much of the change and what types of businesses are most greatly affected by the change in the law and how much was the change in the economy.

    I think everyone understands China’s deserved reputation of stealing technology but few realize that has changed. More and more China is producing valuable technology of its own. Such as a solar assisted air conditioner that uses solar heat, and not solar electricity, to cut electricity usage by 50% to 70%.

    When we look at your laws of innovation, the fact that China is becoming an ever stronger competitor in innovation makes the issues you raise even more serious. Before we handicap ourselves with these changes in the patent law we should realize we are giving the advantage to countries that can always put more resources into innovation than we can. These changes favor the larger countries and large foreign corporations that will suck the money out of our economy.

    The eBay case where it was ruled that an infringer couldn’t be stopped as long as they paid was interesting. Everyone I have talked to doesn’t understand how that is bad. So again, an example would have been good.

    I give the example that if I give someone an exclusive on my technology that is going to allow them to capture a major share of the market they might pay me $5 per customer. But if everyone is allowed to infringe there is no value in an exclusive so I end up getting less per customer.

    Furthermore it makes it impossible for new technology to realize its full value. Let’s say manufacturer’s and retailers are making “x” amount selling an old technology. The new technology comes along but they have no incentive to offer it for sale unless they can make more profit than the old technology.

    If everyone is allowed to infringe that makes it more difficult to get a return from being the first to retool a factory or take on the initial marketing costs. Someone could go through all the expensive costs of introducing a new product to market just to have an infringer come along and ride their coat tails.

    This right to infringe absolutely destroys the ability of new products to get to market and thereby removes the value of one’s property. In violation of eminent domain which requires fair market value to be paid, the property of the patent holder has been stripped and given out freely to everyone.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot about the importance of educating society at large in order for our government to function properly. He saw it as a fundamental responsibility of the government. Where are the judges who make these bad decisions supposed to get their education from? Doesn’t the responsibility fall to Congress which makes the laws?

    That fact that many friends of the court briefs were filed in this case shows Congress is doing a poor job in educating on the purpose and need of the law. It also shows we need to be able fire judges more quickly; the financial ruin such a ruling can leave in its wake is too huge to calculate. This judge appears to be either too lazy or too old.

    In the radio show you raised the issue of how much donations Congress is getting from big business to get this act passed. I think there is more to it than that. A lot of Delegates are sure to have stock market portfolios that contain companies that will benefit from this act.

    I see a problem in making the case that this act benefits large corporations. If that is the case it will simply be seen as transferring the ability to acquire wealth from individuals to corporations but the wealth is still there so the problem really isn’t that bad.

    Of course it is not bad if you are one of the few that own the limited number of shares. But after that, everyone else including the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the current Delegates are left grasping at the leftovers.

    It should be shown that this is not simply the transfer of the ability to create wealth but the cessation of the creation of wealth. There will be less wealth to go around in the future; less wealth to tax to get us out of our national debt. Necessity is the mother of invention and without the economic incentive for smaller entities there is less necessity to invent.

    The arguments that Congress has caved into in the past have been more along the lines of:
    1. Transferring our wealth to foreign interests.
    2. Referring to legislation as a jobs killer or job growth killer.

    China is bringing more and more people into the innovation game to compete with us. We owe them a lot of money. We shouldn’t be destroying our ability to get out of debt. If we are going to give China this advantage over us, shouldn’t we at least get something out of it like a reduction in our debt? Why are we giving away our constitutional rights for free? What happened to eminent domain? Aren’t we supposed to get paid when we get stripped of our property rights?

    Comment by Matthew Artero | July 5, 2011 | Reply

  10. Step back, thanks. The interview wondered about a little bit. It is hard to get people to understand this issue and the callers were sort of standard callers to the show that always call about the same issue. (Guns, Large corporations not paying taxes, etc)

    Comment by dbhalling | July 6, 2011 | Reply

  11. Matthew,
    I will check on the notification feature.
    2000 Patent Act (Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999) which made the following major changes to our laws: 1) Required publication at 18 months, 2) added a prior user defense, and 3) inter partes reexamination. This reduced the inventive to invest in long term, revolutionary technologies, since your competitors could see your patent application and all the correspondence with the patent office. The one exception being if you agreed to not foreign file, however most companies with revolutionary technologies want to file outside the US. The full effects of this change were not fully understood or felt for a couple of years and by that time Sarbanes Oxley had also been passed, which made it much more difficult to go public. This further reduced the incentive to invest in or start companies with revolutionary technologies. I explain this in more detail in my book.
    eBay case – I gave the example of a trespasser moving into your house and the courts not demanding he leave, but only pay you rent. How would want to own a house under that circumstance? The eBay case does not demand this outcome, but allows it. The basic right of property is the right to exclude. This case shows that the Supreme Court does not (did not) understand that a patent is a property right.
    Return on Inventions: I have written a post that shows that there is no such thing as a first mover advantage – the link appears to be broken right now. If you are allowed to copy someone’s invention without paying for it, it is always better to be second to the market. The only exception being an invention that can be kept a trade secret.
    America Invents Act: The Act will not just transfer the wealth creation from individual inventors and startups to large corporations, because large corporation do not invent emerging technologies (see SBA study http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs335tot.pdf). As a result, investors will no longer invest in startups because the risk of a large corporation stealing the technology is too high. Startups will not longer work on emerging technologies because they cannot get funding. Individual inventors will not waste time inventing emerging technologies, because if they succeed they will not profit from them. As a result, emerging technologies will not be developed, which will make all of us less wealthy. In that sense the large corporations are short sighted, but they are more concerned about keeping their position in the marketplace than growth in the country at large.

    Comment by dbhalling | July 6, 2011 | Reply

  12. Dale,

    Yes it’s hard to control the flow of a radio talk show, particularly where the talk show host is trying to create a sense of sensationalism, conspiracy and cabal.

    And patents are not the sexiest things to talk about.

    I read somewhere that only 2% of the population is well trained in, and works in, the science fields. The other 98% do your more mundane things like: hairdresser, coffee shop attendant, hamburger flipper, truck driver, etc. Those are the ones who are more likely to tune in to a show like Ed Jones’s.

    But speaking of conspiracy, I see in the engrossed House Bill (HR 1249) that Best Mode is no longer a means of invalidating a patent during litigation. Foreign patents are written without need for complying with best mode. I wonder what foreign interests pushed to have Best Mode wiped out of litigation proceedings and which Congress persons sold out to those interests? (Not that I’m saying such things could go on in ours, the best government money can buy.) But they did not remove best mode from 112. Very strange. What’s the deal with that?

    Comment by step back | July 6, 2011 | Reply

  13. Yes, I had heard that the best mode was removed. This is like the parts of the bill that appear to deal with the fraud on the patent office issue. While I believe these issue have been a waste of time and money in litigation, I don’t think these clauses were well drafted. I think the Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co deals with the failure to disclose prior art issue well – if the Supremes’ don’t complain that it is a bright line test and screw it up.

    Comment by dbhalling | July 7, 2011 | Reply

  14. matt,
    as I suspected and feared, the link that “worked” last week, no longer works this week

    dale,
    that is why I sent you the mp3 file
    (but to be safe law wise, you should probably get permission from the show before posting the same on your site)

    Comment by step back | July 11, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: