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:




12 Comments

  1. Singapore blogger…

    [...]Election Predictions: What It Means for Patents, Startups, and the Economy | Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC – Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney – Powered by Clvr.Tv[...]…

  2. Dale,

    I’ve been warning you for years about the “innovation” buzz word fest.
    Romney uses the word.
    Obama uses the word.
    All the so-called pundits uses the word.

    It is designed to drive words like “inventor” and “inventing” out of the conversation.

    When was the last time you saw Obama (or Romney) pull out an individual on stage, pay homage to them, and declare proudly to the world, “This is man/woman at his/her best. This is an INVENTOR!”

    No.
    You won’t see that.
    Not here.
    Not in this back-to the-Dark Ages country.

    Instead they all talk about the glorious “we” and how we will “innovate”.
    Innovate what?
    How to repackage Stone Age stones as pet rocks?
    How to drill-baby-drill like there is no tomorrow (because in that case, there won’t be)?
    How to be fiscally “conservative” by cutting out basic science and research?
    How to activate the fear centers in everybody’s heads by constantly talking about bogey men, terrorists, 47% moochers and alien takeover?

    Yes they can.
    And they have.
    This is what Election Year “innovation” truly and really is all about.

    Please God, don’t just “bless” us. Help us. We need it bad.

  3. Stepback,

    You are absolutely correct and you have caused me to try to avoid that word. I appreciate your tutelage on this point.

    Not drilling will not solve our problems. We should as be building Nuclear power plants – but the flat earth people will not let us. BTW did you see that the Japanese Satellite that showed Western Countries are net Carbon Sequesters and it is the developing countries that are major contributors to carbon emissions.

    Government funded science and research has been a huge boondoggle. It is very difficult to show that the money would not be better spent by the people who earned it. That is the whole point of a patent system and the SBA study has shown it is much more effective at producing break through inventions than the government or large companies.

    The definition of theft does not change because we all voted for it, or because the government is doing rather than a private citizen. The moochers include plenty of billionaires – including Warren Buffet and Soros – and clearly their theft is without any morality under any definition of what is moral. Also includes Wall Street and the multi – billion dollar per month give away to banks and Wall Street by the Federal Reserve.

  4. Dale,

    The psycho-linguistic universe is full of poisoned words and phrases:

    “Innovation”
    “Yankee Ingenuity”
    “Exceptionalism”
    “Clean Coal”
    “Carbon free nuclear energy”
    “Software wants to be free”
    “Our Broken Patent System”

    The less you know about a thing, the more appealing it sounds.
    Who would dare be against “Innovation”?
    Who would dare not agree that “Software wants to be free”?

    But let us pick more closely on the “Carbon free nuclear energy” meme.
    This wording invokes a rhetorical technique known as false choice menu.

    Aside from the fact that it is not true that nuclear power does not lead to dumping of large amounts of “carbon” (dioxide) into our God-given atmosphere, the mention of carbon diverts the mind away from considering all the other complexities of nuclear power: Fukashima; Yucca Mountain, Chernobyl and the promise that “we” are exceptional and therefore it will never never happen to a superior people such as ourselves. Yeah. Right.

    The next time you hear a talking-point buzzword (i.e. “Innovation”), stop to remind yourself that it was tenderly hand crafted by the crafty people who know how to spin poison tipped words into invisible arrows of the kind that fly deep into the subconscious mind and work their devious magic silently there, in those hidden recesses long after launch and landing.

    May the “farce” not be with any of us.
    Live long and be within a prosperous community.
    Remember, the man who has it “all”, has nothing.

  5. Stepback,

    You make many good points. George Orwell’s double speak is alive and well. I would add.

    Zero Emmission cars
    Voluntary taxes
    Monopoly
    Liberal
    Right to Health Care
    Right to a Job
    Right to a Housing
    Right to (anything where someone else has to provide something)

    You lose me however Nuclear Energy. It takes carbon to extract the Uranium. Nevertheless Nuclear Energy has produced the most energy for the fewest deaths, maiming, and other side effects of all energy sources. Definitely less that wind energy. You might argue that photovoltaic has resulted in less, but you have to put in the death from mining the metal, transporting the material, processing the material etc. and the very small amount of energy produced in that way.

  6. Dale,

    I think you ‘get it’ and we’re basically on the same page.
    There are no free lunches.
    It takes energy (often carbon burning energy) to produce refined metals, refined uranium, concrete (which includes cement), desalinated water, ice cubes, etc.

    At the end of the day humanity may be in a pickle because it is not clear if any of the touted technologies (e.g. photovoltaics, nuclear fission, etc.) hit some sort of clean breakeven point. One thing seems certain. “Growth” cannot go on to infinity and beyond. Somebody has to do the conservative math on conservation of mass, energy and the planet.

    (**Supposedly according to Einstein, there are two exceptions to the “growth” rule: money & human stupidity. The money supply can grow to almost infinity and beyond because we get that “stuff” (money) from where we always got it, from thin air. And as to human stupidity, we circle back to our politicians and their glib use of words like “we”, “innovation” and our never ending “ingenuity”. We are indeed a clever bunch, H. sapiens.)

  7. Step Back,

    We disagree that there is a limit to growth. First there is likely no limit to the size of the universe, despite earlier thinking on this. Second from a practical point of view we have barely scratched the surface of the available energy that hits Earth. Third, I believe (no proof) that future growth will require less energy as it will be more about ordering information that transportation and extraction – the best proof for this I can give is Kurzweil’s book Singularity.

  8. We disagree? Not totally. Amount of energy output by our closest fusion reactor (aka the Sun) >>>> than energy impinging on tiny orb known as Earth. However, will our private sector “economy” ever think that way? Or will it always myopically worry only about profitability for the next 3 months?

  9. I think the better question, is will the political class be more interested in power than what is right. The history of the world is not that the private sector is short term oriented – when they have property rights – but the politicians.

  10. “Right” is defined by them who are in power.

    Right now it is them who worship the end-of-the-quarter reported return on investment (f=ROI(3 months)).
    Dollars in versus dollars out over the course of a short term focus. Period. Nothing else seems to matter.

    Politicians, of course, have a way longer (cough cough) focus: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

    Historians, if any survive, can ask the longer term question such as What were those Easter Island inhabitants thinking of as they cut down the last tree? (That last one is a metaphor irrespective of what actually happened on Easter Island. In our modern times it might be: What were they thinking of as the last of the glaciers disappeared? Oh yeah. Right. 3rd quarter results.)

  11. No it is not anymore than the gravitational constant is defined by government, or the majority, or the consensus or other nonsense. Right is defined by reality.

    You are blaming the private sector for the actions of the public sector. What sort of companies and people succeed when the government determines the winners and losers, when the government hands out billion dollar guarantees, when the government can arbitrarily decide whether you can move you business to another state, when the government can levy taxes based on which companies and industries it wants to fail?

  12. Governments have picked winners and losers since the dawn of time.

    To imagine otherwise is to dream of a world that never was and never will be.

    (Proof: Bible: Pharaoh decides to go with Joseph’s (of multi-colored rainbow robe fame) economic plan of storing wheat during 7 years of good weather in prep for prophesied global warming drought of following 7 years. The Egyptian empire is saved. Good picking there Pharaoh.)

    (Proof: Bible: Tower of Babel governments reject Noah’s Ark venture capital proposal. Those governments go under water. Noah goes it alone, but his market penetration is severely restricted.)

    (Modern proof: Local governments OK fracking for natural gas. Long term outcome still to be determined.)

Leave a Reply

Subscriber Count

11

Advertise Here

Your Ad

could be right

HERE

find out how

Donations

Coming Soon
 

Subscribe