Posts Tagged ‘Patents’
In a January 2, 2011 column (Needed: A science stimulus) in the Washington Post, George Will points out that the US is suffering from a lack of innovation. He makes a token node to the patent system in the article and then he focuses on government spending on science and engineering and does not mention the patent office is underfunded. George reflects Washingtons and the elitists attitude that government spending is what drives the economy. He just believes government spending should be directed to science. In addition, he repeats the elitist comment that most of the science is done by the elite and us peasants don’t really contribute much.
The late Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod said, “Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists.”
This elitist attitude contradicts all the available evidence. As the book, The Most Powerful Idea in the World, discussed in Georges’ article points out, sustained economic growth does not happen until property rights for ideas (patents) are enacted. This releases a flood of inventions, not by the elite, but by ordinary citizens. It was the democratization of the inventing process that lifted the masses out of the Malthusian Trap.
I went to an excellent talk by Professor Gary Wolfram, of Hillsdale College, at the Pikes Peak Economic Club last night. He explained that free market capitalism is associated with the wealthiest nations in the world and centrally planned economies are associated with the poorest nations of the world. Free markets are based on property rights and the rule of law, not the rule of man. The freest nations economically have the longest life spans. The poorest ten percent of the population in the freest countries have a greater share of the total wealth than in non-free countries. A poor person in the wealthiest/freest countries is likely to live in a house they own, the house is generally a three bedroom house, and most likely has air conditioning.
Professor Wolfram explained that the way you get rich in a free society is to provide goods and services that large numbers of people want. He stated that we should celebrate people and companies that make large profits, because they have made a large number of people happy. A big reason why free market countries are so wealth is because they provide an incentive to innovate. He pointed out how many products that we use today did not exist 30 or 50 years ago.
In the question period of the talk, I pointed out to Professor Wolfram that there is a strong relationship between economically free countries and those that have strong property rights for inventions or patents. The most innovative countries in the world are those with the strongest patent systems. Those countries that first escaped the Malthusian Trap were those with strong patent systems. Vice versa those countries with weak patent systems or non-existent patent systems are poor, not innovative, and are often still mired in the Malthusian Trap. I then asked why so many “free market” proponents want to weaken or eliminate property rights for inventions (patents).
He rejected my premise that many free market proponents were anti-patent. He went on to explain that some inventions deserve patent protection that had shorter periods of time and that other inventions deserved longer periods of protection according to a perfect theoretical model of economics. For instance, inventions that would have been discovered by someone else shortly thereafter should receive shorter terms than “truly novel” inventions. He also suggested that patents inhibit the diffusion of new technologies. Finally, he implied that the way we increase our wealth is by driving down the profits associated with products and services. Reducing the profit margin in goods and services increases the availability of these goods and services. It is common for free market proponents to see the market process of reducing the profit and cost of goods and services as the major way free markets increase wealth.
Several people pointed out that his proposal for different lengths of patent protection seemed to contradict his idea that capitalism is based on the rule of law, not the rule of man. The implication was that someone would have to decide which inventions would receive which term length. As a result, this would be an arbitrary rule of man decision. In fairness, Professor Wolfram pointed out that this was not true as long as the standard was objective. While I disagree that we should have different terms for different inventions, Professor Wolfram is clearly correct that this is not necessarily subjective.
The empirical evidence does not support the suggestion by the Professor that patents inhibit the diffusion of inventions and technology. Those countries with the strongest patent rights also have the greatest technology diffusion. A major goal of modern patent systems is to spread the information associated with inventions, so that other inventors can build on the work of previous inventors. There is also no empirical evidence for the idea that inventions would occur without property rights for inventions. Those countries without strong patent systems do not produce inventions. The suggestion that, in a free market system, inventions will just occur is at best speculation and the evidence we have shows the opposite. When the US has weakened its patent system, our innovation has suffered as well as our economy. For instance, in the 1970s we weakened our patent system and the US started to technologically fall behind Japan. For more information see Foreigners Receive More Patents Than US!
The most troubling part of Professor Wolfram’s response was the implication that wealth is created in a free market economy by driving down profits. Professor Wolfram seemed to imply that there was a “correct” or “optimal” amount of return an inventor should receive for a patent. Shouldn’t we celebrate inventors who create something that everyone wants? If an inventor creates something very few people want, how does that hurt technological diffusion? More importantly, is it really true that wealth is created in a free market by driving down the profit margins of manufacturers (or inventors)?
The idea that the real power of the free market to create wealth is in its ability to foster competition (for the same product) and therefore drive down profit margins is incorrect. If we were able to obtain every product available in 1900 at its cost or even free, we would not be nearly as wealthy as we are today. Wealth is mainly created, not by cost or profit reduction, but by the creation of new inventions, i.e., technology. We do not want people/companies competing to produce me-too products, but competing based on inventions. Shortening the length of patents will encourage competition on me-too products instead of creating new products. While the optimal length for patents may be difficult to determine, shorter terms will discourage innovation. There is no evidence that the present length of patents are inhibiting innovation or the economy.
The idea by free market economists that the power of free markets is there ability to reduce the cost of existing products also leads to fallacies about antitrust law (now rebranded as competition law). This cost reduction theory suggests that we should aggressively apply antitrust law to create competition. However, the empirical evidence shows that periods of aggressive antitrust enforcement result is low levels of invention and weak economic growth. For more information see Foreigners Receive More Patents Than US!
Wealth in a free market is mainly created by the invention of new technologies. It is a failing of economists to suggest that the power of a free market is its cost reduction of existing products. This fallacy results in an anti-property right policy towards inventions and an aggressive application of antitrust laws. The empirical evidence shows these policies do not create wealth.
President Obama’s latest proposal to stimulate the economy is to subsidize community banks so that they lend to small businesses. Gary Townsend has a great article on this at Seeking Alpha. He suggests the program is flawed because of poor execution issues. In his more cynical mood (honest mood), he suggests that it is payback to the banks for supporting financial reform.
More important than poor execution is that Obama’s proposal is fundamentally flawed. It is another case of the government stealing money from one group to give it to another group. It will not create jobs. Banks lead to established businesses that have assets and cash flow. The Kauffman Foundation has shown that all net new jobs over any decade are created by new businesses not small businesses. High quality jobs are created by new business that are creating new technologies. President Obama could get 300 times the impact with 1/30th the spending by fully funding the Patent Office and repealing Sarbanes Oxley and the new financial reform bill. New companies (start-ups) that create high quality jobs are funded by equity investments. These equity investments are backed by intellectual capital – patents. The best return on these equity investments occurs when these companies go public. Sarbanes Oxley has made this almost impossible.
This proposal by President Obama is not about creating jobs, but about political payback.
Jacob Schmookler, an economist and author of Invention and Economic Growth, developed a financial analysis of the invention process. The main point of this mathematical modeling of the invention process was to show that the probability of any invention being created is related to the size of the market for the invention. I intend to present a model of the cost of inventing compared to creating me-too products. I am not a fan of mathematical models for explaining most economic effects, because the terms in the equation are either unmeasurable or vary in an unpredictable manner. As a result, I think these mathematical models give the impression of the accuracy of a physical science, which they clearly do not provide. This can lead to logical errors.
Despite this, I believe a simple mathematical model of the invention process will illustrate some important points. In addition, some people understand concepts better when presented in a mathematical model. Here is my model for the costs associated with introducing a new product based on an invention and me-too product:
Ci(n) = (Inv + Mi)/P + NRE + PC*n + OH*n (New Product based on invention)
Cmt(n) = NRE + PC*n + OH*n (Me-too product)
Where Ci is the cost of creating a product for the owner of the invention, Inv is the cost of creating the invention, P is probability of that the invention will succeed in the market, Mi is the incremental marketing and sales cost of introducing a new invention, n is the number of products that have been produced, NRE is the nonrecurring engineering cost of setting up production, PC is the production cost of the making n products and OH is the cost of overhead for producing n products, Cmt is the cost of creating a me-too product.
The reason I add the probability that the invention (P) will succeed is that not all inventions are successful. An economist who wants to capture all the costs associated with introducing a product based on a new invention has to include this probability to determine the true cost of inventing. This probability will vary based on the type of invention. For instance, line extension inventions are much more likely to succeed than inventions that create whole new markets. An example of an invention that created a new market was Webcrawler, which was the first full text web indexing search engine introduced in 1994. On the other hand adding image or video searching to Google is a line extension.
The cost for marketing and selling a product based on an invention (Mi) is separate from the cost of marketing and selling a me-too product. It takes significantly more money, time, and effort to sell a product based on an invention that is creating a whole new market than a me-too product. Any sales person who has tried to sell a truly unique product knows that it is much easier to sell an existing product or a me-too product because you do not have to explain the value of the product, how the product works, and why the customer would want the product. A true me-too product can be sold mainly on price. A line extension product takes less marketing and sales effort than a revolution product. Large companies tend to focus on line extension inventions because it reduces the risk that the product will not succeed and reduces the cost of marketing and selling. Many start-ups sell through marketing channels in order to reduce this cost.
I include the cost of selling, advertising, and marketing of me-too product in overhead. Once a product based on an invention is well known, then it will incur the same cost as a me-too product of selling, advertising, and marketing. I believe this is an accurate characterization. Non-recurring engineering (NRE) is the same for both the me-too product company and the inventor company. The reason for this is that me-too products will incur approximately the same cost of setting up production as the owner of the invention.
The values of these variables will vary based on the type of invention involved, the type of market in which the invention is sold, and the point in time the product is introduced. This model is not exact. For instance, overhead (OH), production costs (PC), and marketing cost of the invention (Mi) should all be functions of the number of products sold (n). Production costs usually decrease with the number of products sold. Marketing costs of the invention (Mi) should be spread out of the first X number of products sold. In addition, the total marketing cost of the invention (Mi) should not be included for failed products based on an invention, since the owner is likely to kill the project earlier and not spend as much as on a successful product launch. There are probably other shortcomings of these equations. However, certain facts are clear even with any flaws in these equations. The cost of inventing increases the cost to the inventing firm over the me-too firm. As a result, inventing is a market disadvantage without intellectual property.
Invention Law: The cost of inventing increasing the expenses of the inventing firm compared to the expenses of the me-too firm.
There are only two common ways to compensate or incentivize inventors. One is to provide the inventor with a property right (patent) in their invention. The other is to have the government pay for the cost of inventing. The first is consistent with a free market economy and has proven to be extremely successful. The second is consistent with a command and control economy (statism) and has proven to be inefficient and political.
Intellectual Property Law: Inventing is a market disadvantage without intellectual property.
Now I will look at some specific scenarios to provide some insight to these laws.
Consumer good sold through retail outlet
Inventing = New Market
Target Retail Price $10.00
Cost of inventing (Inv) = $100,000.00
Cost of Marketing Invention (Mi) = $900,000.00
Probability of Success (Pi) = 0.1
Nonrecurring Engineering (NRE) = $30,000.00
Production Costs per Unit (PC) = $2.00
Overhead Costs per Unit (OH) = $1.20
|Unit||Inventor’s cost per unit||Copier’s cost per unit|
It is assumed the manufacturers are selling their products $4.00, which is a standard double over manufacturing costs. The 1/5th of retail price is a minimum necessary for the manufacturer to obtain a return that justifies manufacturing the product and selling it through a standard retail channel. As you can see the inventor has to sell 100 million units ($1B in revenue) in order to get within 10 cents of the same manufacturing cost as the me-too manufacturer. The copier’s break even point is somewhere between 10 thousand units and 100 thousand units while the inventor’s break even is point is over 100 times as many units.
It is likely that this scenario overstates the difference between the costs of the inventor and the copier. For instance, the inventor is unlikely to spend the full cost of marketing the invention (Mi) for the other nine failed product. In addition, the percentage of successfully launched products is based on the stated success rate of venture capitalists. Most VCs state that they have one highly successful company for every ten investments. They also usually have 2-3 other companies in the portfolio that produce moderate returns or losses. Not all of the other companies are in their portfolio are a complete loss.
Let’s look at a much more optimistic scenario. Let assume the probability of success (P) includes these moderately successful investments and lets also include the idea that the probability includes some line extensions which have a 70% probability of success or higher. We will also move up the probability of success to compensate for the fact that the inventor is unlikely to spend the full cost of marketing the invention (Mi) on failed inventions. I will make the wild guess that setting the probability to 45% will compensate these differences. I will also assume that instead of taking $1M to launch a new invention that it takes only $100 thousand. Part of the justification for this difference is that the inventor and other founders are likely to not take a salary until the company has significant revenues. I will also lower the overhead significantly, because this is one of the big advantages of a start-up. My optimist scenario is:
Consumer good sold through retail outlet
Inventing = New Market
Target Retail Price $10.00
Cost of inventing (Inv) = $10,000.00
Cost of Marketing Invention (Mi) = $90,000.00
Probability of Success (Pi) = 0.45
Nonrecurring Engineering (NRE) = $30,000.00
Production Costs per Unit (PC) = $2.00
Overhead Costs per Unit (OH) = $0.50
|Unit||Inventor’s cost per unit||Copier’s cost per unit|
In this scenario, the break even point for the copier is between 1000 and 10,000 units, while the break even point for the inventor just over 100,000 units. The inventor is still at a significant disadvantage to the copier. Some of this disadvantage may be offset by the first mover advantage. However, if the inventor company is a start-up its first mover advantage is likely to be significantly offset by the established relationships of an established copier company. In addition, the inventing company may sell more of their initial units directly (not through a retail channel) and their margins will be significantly higher for these units.
It is clear that inventing without intellectual property is a competitive disadvantage. Large companies that invent can offset some of this disadvantage by using other competitive barriers to entry. For instance, an established company can use its network of relationships to create a barrier to entry from start-up copier companies and may be able to use its relationships to provide some barrier to entry from other large established companies. The empirical evidence is that established companies mainly produce incremental inventions. This is because the invention process is risky and as an established company they often have less risky methods of providing incremental revenue or profit gains.
Start-up companies produce all the net jobs in America according to the Kauffman Foundation. They are also the biggest producer of emerging technologies – see Do Individual Inventors and Start-ups Invent Anything Important?. Advances in technology are the only way to increase our real per capita income. We need to encourage investments in inventions, if we want to leave our children a better world than the one we live in. Technology start-ups need the incentive of property rights in their inventions (patents) in order to justify the investment in these companies.
 Schmookler, Jacob, Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1966, pp 113-115.
 For instance, the measurement of GDP is said to be consumer spending plus investment plus government spending plus exports minus imports. This equation leads to the logical error of assuming that consumer spending and government spending results in an increase in the output of a nation. The reason this is a logical error is that people confuse the cause with the effect. Consumption does not create goods and services. Production creates goods and services, which is related to the consumption of good and services. An engineering analogy is that temperature is often measured by determining a change in the resistance of a resistor. If I change the resistance being measured by adding resistor in series with the thermistor this does not change the temperature of the environment being measured. This is what economists are arguing when they suggest that increased government spending will cause the economy to grow. Government spending does not create any new goods and services; it just either consumes production or transfers the return for production from one person to another. Similarly, consumer spending is a way of measuring production. Artificially increasing consumer spending does not increase production. For instance, giving people income tax rebates when they never paid any income tax does not increase production, it just steals the productive effort of those who do pay taxes.
 The break even point is when the cost per unit is equal to the sales price per unit.
I believe there is a lot of confusion regarding the difference between invention and innovation. This confusion is the result of erroneous definitions and the purposeful intent of some to increase their importance by belittling the contributions of others.
I believe that most of this mischief started with the great economist Joseph Schumpter. According to Wikipedia:
Following Schumpeter (1934), contributors to the scholarly literature on innovation typically distinguish between invention, an idea made manifest, and innovation, ideas applied successfully in practice
There is nothing inherently wrong with the distinction above, but the way it is applied blurs together a number of different skills. Blurring skills together shows a misunderstanding of the process of innovating. Broadly speaking, innovation can be broken into two distinct sets of skills: creation and dissemination. By creation I mean creating something new, not production – creating something old.
A subset of creation is invention. An invention is a creation with an objective repeatable result. A creation that is not an invention has a subjective result, such as the effect of a painting on a viewer, or the effect of a book on a reader. Many activities combine both a subjective creation and an invention, such as architecture. However, we can separate out the invention from the other creative elements and this helps our understanding of the process.
Dissemination may include a number of processes, such as education (marketing, sales), manufacturing, finance, and management. This is not to say that marketing cannot be creative, it clearly often is very creative. However, the creative part of marketing can be separated out from the dissemination or execution part of marketing. The same is true of manufacturing, which can definitely include inventing. But an invention related to manufacturing is part of the creation step not part of the dissemination step.
Finance can also have inventions. For instance, the invention of a fractional reserve ratio bank is clearly an invention. It has the objective result of securitizing assets and turning them into loans and currency. A fractional reserve bank will securitize land and turn into a loan and currency. Despite this, it is important to understand that the first person to develop the fractional reserve bank is inventing and the person operating the fractional reserve bank is disseminating.
All real per capita economic progress is the result of inventing. This is not to say that it is unnecessary to disseminate inventions, but if there were no new inventions there would not be any economic progress. We would be stuck in static world once all the inventions had been completely disseminated. Of course, if we stop all dissemination activities we will quickly starve to death.
It is my belief that business and economic professors have focused on “innovation” instead of “invention” because they have no idea how to invent or how the process of how inventing works. They concentrate on what they know, i.e. business and economic practices. As a result, the focus is dissemination, under-appreciating the importance of inventing. In addition, it results in misleading business theories, such as:
- Management teams are more important than the quality of the invention.
- Execution is everything; patents and other IP do not matter.
- Get Big Fast.
The truth-test of these theories is directly related to the strength of the patent laws at the time the company is created. When patent laws are weak, these theories are more true and when patent laws are strong, these theories are less true. Unfortunately, when patent laws are weak these theories do not overcome the disincentive to invest in risky new technologies. Management teams do not build revolutionary or disruptive technologies, they just disseminate these technologies. These sorts of teams are like large companies and generally can produce a return with less risk by NOT developing high-risk technologies. They tend to focus on incremental technologies or on stealing someone else’s technology. While this may be good business advice in a period of weak patents, it is bad for our country’s competitiveness and our standard of living.
Technological progress (i.e., inventing), in the long run, is the only competitive business advantage. The best management team in the world selling buggy whips at the turn of the century could not overcome the technological advance of the automobile and stay a buggy whip company. The best management team in the world selling vacuum tubes in the 1940s, could not overcome the advance of transistors and semiconductors and stay a vacuum tube company. This country is littered with companies that had great management teams that were overwhelmed by changes in technology. For instance, Digital Computers had a great management team, but they could not overcome the advance of the personal computer. Digital Computers failed to invent fast enough to overcome the onslaught of small inexpensive computers. US steel was not able to overcome the onslaught of mini-mills, aluminum, and plastics. This was not because they did not have a good management team, it was because the management team under- prioritized invention and over-prioritized execution or dissemination skills. Ford & GM have not become walking zombies because they did not have strong management teams, but because they have not invented. As a result, they have antiquated production systems and weak technology in their products. 86% of the companies in the Fortune 500 in 1959 are no longer there. Some of these companies disappeared because of bad management, but most companies disappeared because they did not keep up with changing technology. In other words, they did not invent.
Inventions or advances in technology are the ONLY WAY to increase real per capita incomes and the only long term business advantage. Business school theories that do not prioritize invention, are bad business and bad for our country.
Mr. Roy’s article “Why Drug Patent Settlements are Good for Consumers” is a breath of fresh air in this debate. Mr. Roy shows why these settlements are good news for consumers. Patented inventions are property rights with the same logical basis as property rights in land. As Ayn Rand pointed out “Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.” “What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values: these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea.”
History has clearly shown that when governments interfere with private property rights, it always results in less economic activity. Less economic activity is always bad for consumers, since they have fewer choices and more importantly their income is negatively impacted. The US government’s interfering with drug companies’ patent property rights have will have the same effect. The government is not just interfering with drug companies’ property rights, it is also interfering with contracts. This is clearly not in the spirit of Contract Clause of the US constitution and is detrimental to economic activity.
Mr. Roy clearly shows how government interference in these contracts and patent rights is not beneficial to consumers. He explains,
If the government banned the “devious tactic” of legal settlements, the likely outcome is that consumers will spend more on pharmaceuticals, not less. Claims to the contrary are only accurate if you believe that generic companies are dumb enough to settle even when they would win in court. The truth is the opposite: modern generic companies like Teva employ the most sophisticated patent lawyers on the planet. You can rest assured that they will only settle when they think their case is weak.
Please read his full analysis.
First, the decision that Bilski’s claims were not considered to be patentable subject matter is not surprising. The Supreme Court’s hostility to the Bilski patent was evident in oral argument.
It is not surprising that the most patent friendly Justice (based on the opinions in this case) is Justice Kennedy. President Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to understand the importance of patents to economic growth, appointed him. For more information see National Inventor’s Day. The so-called “conservative” justices on the court could learn a lot by reviewing Reagan’s understanding of patents and how they fit into his economic program.
No categorical rule was proclaimed against business method patents.
Section 101 similarly precludes the broad contention that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods. The term “method,” which is within §100(b)’s definition of “process,” at least as a textual matter and before consulting other limitations in the Patent Act and this Court’s precedents, may include at least some methods of doing business. p. 10.
The Court acknowledges that the “machine or transformation test” might inhibit patents on software.
The machine-or-transformation test may well provide a sufficient basis for evaluating processes similar to those in the Industrial Age—for example, inventions grounded in a physical or other tangible form. However, there are reasons to doubt whether the test should be the sole criterion for determining the patentability of inventions in the Information Age. As numerous amicus briefs argue, the machine-or-transformation test would create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques, and inventions based on linear programming, data compression, and the manipulation of digital signals. p. 9.
The Court acknowledges, (Kennedy), that there is no good definition of a business method patent. I have made a similar observation in Bilski, Software Patents and Business Method Patents.
The following passage provides a ray of hope that the Court may someday reach a proper analysis of section 101:
that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods. The term “method,” which is within §100(b)’s definition of “process,” at least as a textual matter and before consulting other limitations in the Patent Act and this Court’s precedents, may include at least some methods of doing business. See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 1548 (2d ed. 1954) (defining “method” as“[a]n orderly procedure or process . . . regular way or manner of doing anything; hence, a set form of procedure adopted in investigation or instruction”). The Court is unaware of any argument that the “‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’” Diehr, supra, at 182, of “method” excludes business methods. Nor is it clear how far a prohibition on business method patents would reach, and whether it would exclude technologies for conducting a business more efficiently. p. 10.
The concurring opinions (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) (Breyer, Scalia) show that most of the Justices want a categorical rule against business method patents. However, they fail to provide a definition of a business method patent. Because the Justices refuse to provide a definition, it is likely that different Justices mean different things by a business method patent. The only clue as to what they mean by a business method patent is either a way of organizing people or a patent related to finance or money. I explain why excluding finance and money from patentable subject matter is flawed at Is Money and Abstract Idea.
The Opinion leaves behind a confused set of Jurisprudence on Section 101. Steve Kunin’s AIPLA presentation is excellent at pointing out the nonsense of the Court’s previous opinions on point.
The Opinion seems to overturn State Street, which was the most intelligent statement of section 101 by our Courts.
The Court confuses statutory subject matter 101 with Novelty 102 and Non-Obviousness 103. For instance, Justice Kennedy writes:
In light of these precedents, it is clear that petitioners’ application is not a patentable “process. Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk: Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class. p. 15.
Whether Bilski claims a well known economic practice is irrelevant to a 101 analysis. Confusing and blending the different sections of the patent statute is a consistent problem of the Supreme Court, and first year patent law associates.
The Court again proves that they do not understand that every invention is a combination of known elements and that pointing out that one of the elements is known provides no insight about a patent. Specifically the Court writes,
These claims attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of hedging risk in the energy market and then instruct the use of well-known random analysis techniques to help establish some of the inputs into the equation.
For more information see Non-Obviousness: A Case Study in Judicial Activism.
All of the opinions of the Court embrace the myth that a patent is a monopoly. A patent is a property right. Just as individuals have property rights in land or automobiles. Property rights are derived from Locke’s theory of Natural Rights. This is completely consistent with patents. For more information, please refer to, The Myth that Patents are a Monopoly: and Scarcity – Does it Prove Intellectual Property is Unjustified? . The Court would be wise to consult the preeminent philosopher on Capitalism: see Ayn Rand on Intellectual Property.
The Court repeats the familiar myth about the Preamble to the Patent and Copyright clause of the Constitution. We know this is a red herring, because the Court and other proponents of this theory never discuss that a trashy novel which does not “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” should not receive Copyright protection. In addition, the same argument is made with respect to the second amendment and the Court clearly rejected this interpretation. It is Intellectual Fraud to suggest that the Preamble is meant to limit the “rights” of inventors and authors. For more information see Levine & Boldrin Argue the U.S. Should End the Patent System .
The Court repeats well known myths about the economics of patents. For instance, the Court writes patents
can discourage research by impeding the free exchange of information, for example, by forcing people to avoid the use of potentially patented ideas, by leading them to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing or pending patents, by requiring complex licensing arrangements, and by raising the costs of using the patented methods. Although [e]very patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. p. 43.
The Court does not understand that inventions are the only method of increasing real per capita income and are property rights not monopolies. By forcing people to invent instead of copy or perform redundant research we increase our wealth and protect property rights. For more information see Source of Economic Growth.
Nonetheless, not every new invention or discovery may be patented. Certain things are free for all to use. “Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
Really, the Constitution states that Congress is to secure “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” What part of “Right” do the Justices not understand? The Constitution does not allow Congress or the Supreme Court to decide which inventions ought to receive patent protection. This complete disregard for the Constitution shows that this Supreme Court is hostile to patents and has no intention of doing their Constitutional duty of securing the Rights of inventors.
I often hear from extremely intelligent engineers that they have read all sorts of patents in the last decade that should not have been issued. Despite their brilliance, I am usually pretty sure that they have no idea what they are talking about. Immediately, I want to know did they read the claims? Do they understand that the claims are not prose? If they read the claims, did they read the specification? These are just a few of the questions I want to ask them. Patent law is perhaps one of the most complex area’s of law to understand. The US Supreme Court does not understand the difference between a 101 issue (patent subject matter) and a 102/103 matter (Novelty and Non-Obviousness). It is quite common for patent attorneys who have practice 2-4 years to confuse patentability issues with infringement issues. It is not that these brilliant engineers and scientists are incapable of understanding these issues, it is just that they need proper training in these issues just as they needed training in physics, calculus, and their engineering courses.
Usually, when an engineer makes the comment that they know of all sorts of patents that should have not been allowed I relate a story from my time at Motorola. While I was at Motorola we received a letter from a company in the telecommunications world suggesting that we might want to take a license to about a dozen of their patents. For some reason the task of analyzing this request fell in my lap. I was given access to the PhD’s in our research division to help me with my analysis. Motorola had a very aggressive patent strategy at the time and most of these PhD’s were inventors on half a dozen or more patents. As a result, they were both very intelligent and fairly well versed in the patent process. I asked that this group of engineers versed in the technology associated with these patents review them and then we would get together and discuss the claims to determine if Motorola should consider taking a license to any of them. We met a week later and I started discussing each of these patents one by one. When I mentioned the first patent, I got a chorus explaining to me that there was no way that this company should have received this patent. I told them to calm down and work through the independent claims with me element by element. As I queried them about whether Motorola would use each element in the patented technology I got a lot of bored responses that everyone did that element or step. However, after a number of these responses I would ask if the next element was used by Motorola and the group would respond “Why would they do that?” My answer would be, “I don’t know why, but that is probably why they obtained the patent?” Then we would move on to the next claim. I went through this same indignation with each patent we analyzed. However, when I forced them to read the claims carefully it turned out that Motorola was not using or planning to use any of the technology in any of the patents this company sent us. In fairness to this group of PhD’s and the brilliant engineers I run into, many patent attorneys make the same mistake when confronted with the question of whether their client infringes a patent or whether a patent should have issued. Our Supreme Court also makes these same mistakes.
So forgive me when I see open source people, venture capitalists, journalists, etc. not nearly as brilliant as the engineers mentioned above saying a patent should not have issued that I am highly skeptical they have the skill or have put in the hard effort to correctly analyze the issues. Analyzing whether an invention is patentable or whether a product or service infringes another patent is hard work. Even those of us skilled in this area and concerned about a public debate over a particular patent issue are reluctant to spend the tremendous amount of time and effort to correctly analyze the issues involved. In order to help people understand some of the possible mistakes they are making when analyzing patent issues, I have put together a list of logical errors below.
Error in Analyzing Patent Issues
1) Confusing infringement issues with patentability issues.
2) Confusing what the specification says versus what the claims cover.
3) Confusing whether an invention is patentable with whether it is marketable.
4) Confusing whether an invention is patentable with whether it is of interest to the academic community.
5) Confusing the purpose of the specification with the purpose of the claims.
6) Reading the claims as if they are prose and not giving each word meaning, which is like ignoring terms in an equation.
7) Reading the abstract instead of the claims.
Reading the claims instead of the specification.
9) Reading the specification instead of the claims.
10) Not understanding the difference between the independent claims and the dependent claims.
11) Confusing what is obvious with what is simple.
12) Using hindsight in analyzing a patent.
13) Not understanding that every invention in the history of the world is a combination of known elements. See Understanding Patent Novelty (A common error by the Supreme Court)
14) Ignoring the context of a word in the claims.
15) Selectively emphasizing certain parts of the claims or specification while ignoring other parts.
16) Confusing whether your understand the invention with the patentability of the invention.
17) Confusing the meaning of plural and singular terms in the claims.
18) Assuming that all patents have the same scope.
Any patent attorney who has been in practice for over 10 years has seen every one of these errors from their clients and probably plenty more.
I think that engineers and scientists should be involved in shaping patent policy. Unfortunately, few engineers or scientists have the taken the time to truly understand how patents work before criticizing them or making broad statements that they have seen numerous patents that should not have issued. Uninformed comments are unlikely to advance patent policy in a way that is good for the country or good for these engineers’ and scientists’ economic future.
According to business and patent expert David Kline and Henry R. Nothhaft, CEO of technology miniaturization firm Tessera, Inc. in the Harvard Business Review:
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may be the single greatest facilitator of private sector job creation and economic growth in America. It is this agency, after all, that issues the patents that small businesses — especially technology startups — need to attract venture capital investment, develop new products and services, and serve their historic role as the primary source of almost all new net job growth in America. According to one recent study, 76 percent of startup executives say that patents are essential to their funding efforts.
David Kline is an expert in this area. He is author of ground breaking book, Rembrandts in the Attic , on patents in business. He is also author of Burning the Ships that explores how Microsoft used patents to transform their business. According to the authors, “The costs of the forgone innovation resulting from patent delays in the many billions of dollars annually.” I think they are underestimating the cost of patent delays.
Please read the full article at http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/05/the_biggest_job_creator_you_ne.html
Director of the Patent Office, David Kappos, provided the following explanation for why we should convert from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system at the BIO International Convention.
“Kappos’ explanation of the long odds facing a small entity claiming to be the first to invent but who filed the patent application second. Kappos likened the odds of such a Junior Party prevailing to the odds of being bitten by a Grizzly Bear and a Polar Bear on the same day. He then went on to say that you have to go back to FY 2007 to find a prevailing small entity Junior Party in an interference. As Kappos explained, those who think first to invent is a benefit for small entities are living a lie, which is certainly true, but many will not like to hear that truth.”
There are two problems with this “practical” answer: 1) the first person to file is not the inventor logically or morally, and 2) the unintended consequences of a first to file system. A system that is supposedly practical but is not just will not succeed in spurring innovation. The real answer is to reduce the burdens associated with interferences, not to trash the morally and logically correct answer – first to invent.
A first to file system will result in many poorly thought out patent applications increasing the PTO’s workload and increasing the number of Continuations-In-Part (CIPs). The confusion created by this system of filing early and then following up with corrected applications will result in litigation being more expensive and less certain. In addition, this system will further bias the patent system in favor of large entities. Large entities will use a first to file system to flood the PTO with patents to overwhelm small entities and individual inventors in the race to the patent office. Small entities and individual inventors will never be able to compete financially in this race to the PTO. According to the SBA, most emerging technologies are created by small entities not large entities. As a result, we need to make sure that our patent system is friendly for small entities if we want it to encourage innovation.
The result of the first to file system along with the publication system in the rest of the world has been to create a patent system for large entities. The number of filings by small entities in these countries is trivial compared to the number of patent filings by small entities and individual inventor in the U.S. There is no evidence that first to file system has spurred innovation in those countries that have this system. So the “truth” here is that the first to file system is not designed to spur innovation – it is a further attempt to bias the patent system in favor of large corporations.
This book is a well laid out, logical book on how to ensure that your company continues to innovate. This is not a touchy feely book or a feel good cheerleader book like so many business books. If you want practical advice from a person who has been there then this is the book for you. As the book subtitle states this book is “A 10-Step Program for Corporate Survival.”
Robert F. Brands, the author, headed the highly successful company Airspray. Airspray makes consumer products, particularly the highly successful instant foam dispensers. These dispensers foam soap products without an aerosol and are found almost everywhere today.
The book has a number of metrics to determine if your company is truly innovating or only giving inventing lip service. He suggests that companies should track new product sales. New products are generally defined as those introduced in the last five years, however this depends on your industry. If new product sales are less than 15% of total sales then your company is at risk of becoming extinct. Note line extensions are not new products. In Chapter 3 the book describes a complete innovation audit to determine if your company is truly committed being a technology leader. He points out that most companies make the fatal mistake of cutting R&D and new product development budgets when time are tough. If you want your company to survive, this should be the last budget item cut.
Creating successful new products is not enough to survive in the marketplace. Your company must protect its new products with strong IP particularly patents to have sustainable advantage. In addition, you company must understand the patent landscape of your marketplace. “It is proven that those companies with a strong patent portfolio creates much more value to their stakeholders than companies without. Airspray, the case study focused on in the book (the company that brought instant foaming dispensers like hand soap to market) was sold at 15 times EBIT, which proves the point.” This 15 EBIT was twice the going EBIT for similar companies and the main reason for this high valuation was Airspray’s patent portfolio protecting its innovative products.
Robert’s Rules of Innovation is a must read for anyone who wants practical, real world advice on how to ensure that their company does not go the way of the dinosaurs.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, being members of congress, are trying their best to pin the financial crisis on anyone but Congress. It appears the favorite whipping boys are Alan Greenspan and unfettered capitalism. Congress conveniently forgets that between Fannie, Freddie, FHA loans, Veterans Housing Administration, and the Community Reinvestment Act we don’t have unfettered capitalism. Not to mention to the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Association, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and state banking regulatory agencies. The only way someone can call that unfettered capitalism is to propagate The Big Lie: that the US is a bastion of unfettered capitalism, which causes all our problems.
As Alan Greenspan pointed out:
the surge in demand was the heavy purchases of subprime securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the major U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Pressed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Congress to expand “affordable housing commitments,” they chose to meet them by investing heavily in subprime securities. The firms accounted for an estimated 40% of all subprime mortgage securities (almost all adjustable rate), newly purchased, and retained on investors’ balance sheets during 2003 and 2004. That was an estimated five times their share of newly purchased and retained in 2002, implying that a significant proportion of the increased demand for subprime mortgage backed securities during the years 2003-2004 was effectively politically mandated, and hence driven by highly inelastic demand.
As Greenspan points out Congress had no interest in reining in the subprime mortgage party or the securitization of these mortgages (CMO). In addition, Greenspan did warn about both the problems with Fannie and Freddie. In 2002, he expressed concerns to the FOMC, noting that “…our extraordinary housing boom…financed by very large increases in mortgage debt – cannot continue indefinitely.” It did continue for longer than he would have forecast at the time, and it did so despite the extensive two-year -long tightening of monetary policy that began in mid-2004. See Greenspan’s complete analysis at http://fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0407-Greenspan.pdf.
Greenspan then points out that there “was a pronounced fall from 2000 to 2005 in both global real long-term interest rates and nominal long-term rates, which indicated that global saving intentions, of necessity, had chronically exceeded global intentions to invest. Yet the ex post global saving – investment rate in 2007, overall, was only modestly higher than in 1999, suggesting that the uptrend in the saving intentions of developing economies tempered declining investment intentions in the developed world. This statement is the most interesting and important statement in all of Greenspan’s testimony. Why had and has the developed world reduced its rate of investment? Why has investment not grown since 1999?
Has the rate of investment in the developed world stagnated because we have run out of businesses and ideas? No, since 2000 we have passed a number of laws and regulations that are killing innovation in the US. The incredible innovation of the 90s was based on technology start-up companies built on intellectual capital, financial capital, and human capital. All three of the pillars have been under attack since 2000. Our patent laws have been weakened reducing the value of intellectual capital. Sarbanes Oxley has made it impossible to go public reducing financial capital for start-ups and the FASB rules on stock options have made it harder to attract human capital to start-ups. If we want to create jobs, we need to have laws that encourage entrepreneurial start-ups.
These issues are discussed in more detail in my book The Rise and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation – http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-American-Entrepreneur-Regulations/dp/1439261369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262911287&sr=8-1
A recent article in the Huffington Post suggests that the U.S. has become a third world country in terms of innovation. The article states:
A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation looked at the progress made over the last decade in the area of innovation. Out of the 40 countries and regions it examined, the U.S. ranked dead last.
A study on innovation by the Boston Consulting Group concluded that America is “disadvantaged in several key areas, including work force quality and economic, immigration, and infrastructure policies.”
In 2009, patents issued to American applicants dropped by 2.3 percent. Those granted to foreign-based applicants increased by over 6 percent.
The article suggests loosening up our immigration policy for highly trained individuals and increasing the quality of our educational institutions as solutions to this problem. While there is nothing wrong with these suggestions, they fail to recognize the real changes in policy that we have made in the last decade that are killing innovation. Specifically we have passed a number of laws and regulations that are killing innovation in the US. The incredible innovation of the 90s was based on technology start-up companies built on intellectual capital, financial capital, and human capital. All three of the pillars have been under attack since 2000. Our patent laws have been weakened reducing the value of intellectual capital. Sarbanes Oxley has made it impossible to go public reducing financial capital for start-ups and the FASB rules on stock options have made it harder to attract human capital to start-ups.
The importance and influence of unions has declined dramatically over the last thirty years. While more than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998. Is there a way that unions, especially blue collar traditional unions, can increase their membership, align themselves with the knowledge economy, and help the U.S. become more competitive?
Unions are often perceived as lining their own pockets at the expense of non-union workers, the companies they work for, and the country’s interests. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of American unions was the AFL-CIO support for Poland’s Solidarity Union in the 1980s. This support was a significant reason why the Iron Curtain fell. This support for Solidarity shows that American unions are not Marxist. I believe that it is possible for Unions to reorient their focus while still protecting their traditional role of protecting worker’s rights. America’s shift to a corporatist society since 2000 is providing unions with a historic chance to revive their importance and help their country.
How can unions seize this opportunity? They need to focus their efforts on the most important asset in a knowledge economy, intellectual property. Unions have generally opposed the patent reform bills being proposed by Congress because they believe the bills will hurt America’s competitiveness and therefore the availability and quality of work for their members. Now they need to become agents for inventors and refocus their lobbying efforts on strengthening our patent laws and demanding the other countries provide strong intellectual property laws. Forcing other countries to respect our patent laws and strengthen their patent laws will keep quality jobs in the US and also help these countries to develop a culture of innovation rather than a culture of imitation and theft and long term poverty.
How can unions become agents for inventors and serve their traditional members? Unions have the advantage of a large number of members with strong mechanical skills that have numerous potential inventions. Unions should nurture the inventive interests of their members by providing education about patents and the invention process. They should also provide funding for their member’s inventions and act as agents for these inventions. In return, the unions would receive a portion of any royalties. Unions have an inherent advantage over their members taking these projects on themselves. One advantage they have is a large installed base for the inventions of their members. They already have a mechanism for communicating with their members including training classes. This significantly reduces the risk of bringing an invention to market that would be used by their members. In addition, unions have a ready source of funds for development. The retirement funds of unions need to be invested. A very small slice of these retirement funds could be used to fund the invention program. From start-up funding experiences we know that most of these inventions will fail or only be moderately profitable, however a few will be spectacularly successful. By spreading the risk over numerous inventions, the union can obtain above average returns with less risk than their members attempting to commercialize their inventions directly.
Besides the direct financial return from any inventions the union decides to pursue, an invention development program would increase their membership. If just one union member becomes moderately wealthy because of an invention their union decided to represent, the news would spread like wild fire and result in flood of new union members. In addition, the union can use their member’s inventions as a bargaining chip in contract negotiations. For instance, an invention on a better, cheaper, or faster way of installing electrical wiring could be used as a bargaining chip with the automakers or building contractors. The union could provide a bid using or not using the invention. If the company chose not to select the union’s bid with the invention, then the union could deny the company from using the invention. If the union won the contract a portion of the payment would be for royalties for using the invention.
I would suggest that unions focus their initial inventing efforts on tools that their members are likely to use. These tools could be branded and sold to the general public as well as to union members or the companies that they work for. This would be the least risky inventions to pursue. I would not suggest that union’s make the tools themselves as this would result in a conflict between representing their members and being a manufacturer. However, they could use these invention to negotiate employment contracts in the companies that they select to make the licensed product.
If the unions adopt an invention agent model as part of their portfolio of services they provide for members it would:
* Increase their membership; provide a return on the knowledge of their members
* Increase the productivity and quality of the products made by the companies that work with the unions
* Improve the image of unions in the mind of the public
* Provide a counterbalance to the corporatism that is infecting the US
* Keep quality jobs in the US.
For more information on creating an invention company see The Next Big Thing http://hallingblog.com/2010/02/19/the-next-big-thing/ and Jump Starting a Secondary Market for Patents http://hallingblog.com/2009/11/16/jump-starting-a-secondary-market-for-patents/
This videoby Alexander Poltorak takes on a number of the myths associated with patent trolls. The video explains the hypocrisy of large companies complaining about “Patent Trolls.” It also makes an interesting point that patents are not a tax on innovation but a tax on copiers (non-innovators). While I do not agree with all the points in the video, it makes a valuable contribution to the discussion about the value of patents.
- Book Review: The Nature of Technology
- Business Method Patents: A Solution?
- Philosophy of Science
- Guest Post: Stop the Destruction of Independent Invention
- DK Halling Interview with Fran Lewis
- Latest Review of Pendulum of Justice
- PATENT=MONOPOLY – A LEGAL FICTION
- Guest Post: Fatal Patent Legislation Must Be Stopped
- GAO No Patent Litigation Explosion: No NPE Problem
- Echoes of Pendulum of Justice: Government Stealing Inventions