State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Pendulum of Justice Reviewed By Steve Moore of Bookpleasures.com

Steve Moore ex-scientist and author six sci-fi thrillers reviewed Pendulum of Justice  for Book Pleasure.com.  Here is part of what he had to say:

Like all good thrillers, this one leaves you breathless but also makes you think, “Could this really happen?” After you remember things that go on in the real world, your answer will probably be a resounding “Yes!” And that’s the scary part. As I was reading, my mind kept going back to The Fugitive—the movie, not the TV series. There Harrison’s Ford character probably generates more sympathy than Hank, but the latter protagonist is perhaps more realistic. But for all lovers of a good thriller revolving around a nefarious conspiracy, this book is required reading.

For the full review click here.  SPOILER ALERT – but be aware that the review gives away part of the plot.

Advertisements

October 9, 2013 - Posted by | News | , ,

2 Comments »

  1. This fiction book talks about innovation being stolen.
    In the real world, I believe the problem is that most big businesses / corporations believe they have
    far more to gain by having weak ip / patent laws than by having strong ip / patent laws. This way, they
    may feel they can steal ip from the entire country or world rather than rely upon their own r&d. Also, with the superior resources and economies of scale of big businesses , I suspect they are confident they will receive the vast majority of the financial gains from any innovations they are able to steal from individual inventors, small businesses and entrepreneurs. Thus, they want a touch of ip protection to fool people into innovating, but they want ip protection to be too weak to offer big benefits to the true inventors / innovators. In the past, big business has successfully lobbied that ideas should not be patentable under u.s. law, so they can very easily steal patents by simply making small revisions to patents, which from my understanding, have to be a very specific implementation. If ideas were patentable, it would be generally very difficult for big business to steal innovations by making small revisions to patents. Big business lobbied for a patent system too costly to be used by most small inventors, due to the often large expenses in getting a patent, and the often massive expenses in enforcing and / or defending patents, which big businesses, I have been told, simply rely upon these expenses being too costly for small inventors, and as a result, big businesses often trample over small inventor patents, knowing after researching each individual’s finances, the small inventors / entrepreneurs/small businesses can’t afford to defend or enforce or in some cases, even get their patent(s). In the past, big businesses have lobbied for cleverly corrupt laws that benefit them, such as time periods allowed that cannot realistically be achieved by those without the connections and resources of big business. Big business wrote the ip laws in many ways such as this to allow them to effectively steal innovations from individual inventors, small business and entrepreneurs. Also, I believe most big businesses view innovation as their primary competitive threat. Small businesses often rely upon innovation as their primary competitive advantage. Of course, as a result, I believe most big businesses want very weak ip protections. Also, I believe big business lobbied for the ‘first to file’ system since it would allow them to steal ip/patents/innovations with the surveillance state. A recent study concluded that the majority of software contains spyware of some kind. An audit of the nsa concluded the nsa was ‘massively, massively, massively corrupt’. Surveillance by its nature is generally clandestine, and I believe, generally has little or no accountability for corruption. I feel we now live in a world of constant 24 hour surveillance with a multitude of devices and methods, such as voice recognition software like Apple’s siri. The surveillance primarily benefits the rich and powerful and big business who primarily have access to it. Intellectual accomplishments of all kinds, I believe, are being stolen en masse with surveillance. The country began with this effort to steal from inventors with the 20 year time limit under u.s. law, which I believe was specified by the founding fathers – generally wealthy people for their time, known to historians to massively exploit the government they created for personal gain. Big businesses have made a fortune by refusing to license patents – and instead, simply waiting for the multitudes of patents to expire year after year while relying upon the individual inventor’s lack of resources. I believe the control of ip laws by big business has played a big role in undermining the prosperity of small businesses and entrepreneurs in the u.s., and I believe this is one reason unemployment in the u.s. remains high. In my opinion, Ip / patent laws in recent years have become comically and blatantly corrupt and unethical, such as the recent u.s. patent reform. A big problem is that special interests, such as big businesses, play a huge role in writing legislation due to campaign contributions.

    Comment by brandon smith | November 13, 2013 | Reply

  2. Hi Brandon,

    I would agree with most of what you say. Big business might be more properly defined the politically connected, but they overlap a lot.

    You are spot on that big companies biggest fears is small start ups that have created new technologies. The computer, electronics, and software industries are full of stories of entrenched companies being toppled by companies with new technologies.

    Neither the founders or the Constitution defined the time period for patents and a number of differing terms have been tried in the US over the years. The last change was from 17 years from the grant of the patent to 20 years from the filing of a patent application. Almost immediately this resulted in an increase (doubling) in the time the Patent Office took to grant patents, this was coupled with the requirement that patent application be published.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 13, 2013 | 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: