Worthless patents and technology thieves
The IPKat was puzzled, and a little infurated, by pieces this weekend from the New York Times and Washington Post, both relating to the current US patent system and why it is apparently broken.
Michael Fitzgerald, writing in the Times (article here), cites a study by Boston economist academics James Bessen and Michael Muerer, which argues that many patents are not really worth having, partly based on data showing that the costs of p
atent litigation now apparently outweighs profits from patents. Although profits were 'estimated' at $9.3 billion in 1999, litigation costs came in at $16 billion in the same year. The situation has apparently become worse since then. Bessen and Meurer don't go as far as saying that the whole system should be abolished (as others do, for example here), but do suggest that some things should be done to change it for the better, such as reining in awards for damages and to increase the number of appeal courts able to handle patent cases.
(Left: Current disputes coming out of Boston have nothing on past ones)
The IPKat, while agreeing in general with the suggested changes, admires the talent that some economists clearly have of being able to come up with any figures they like to justify the conclusion they want to arrive at. How they come up with their valuation of 'profits' from patents is, however, a little beyond his feline imaginings.
On the subject of why (or whether) the current US system is broken for other reasons, Dana Rohrabacher writes in the Washington Post (article here) that American innovators should beware new proposals to bring the US into line with the rest of the world by implementing a 'first to file' system and making publications of patent applications mandatory. By some logic-defying leaps of reasoning, he manages to equate these to direct attacks on the poor small
inventor, who would have his inventions stolen by 'technology thieves', and be unable to file the multiple applications necessary to protect his invention.
(Right: Congressman Rohrabacher, supporting one sentiment the IPKat can agree with)
The IPKat thinks that Congressman Rohrabacher ought perhaps to have a little look at what happens in reality with patent applications in the rest of the world, where a first to file system appears to work quite well. The IPKat also wonders how publishing a patent application after 18 months could possibly result in any invention being stolen, since he was under the impression that part of the bargain of getting a patent is to let everyone know what it is you were trying to protect. Any answers would be gratefully received via the comment facility below.
More commentary here (Slashdot), here (Patently-O) and here (IAM blog).
Michael Fitzgerald, writing in the Times (article here), cites a study by Boston economist academics James Bessen and Michael Muerer, which argues that many patents are not really worth having, partly based on data showing that the costs of p
atent litigation now apparently outweighs profits from patents. Although profits were 'estimated' at $9.3 billion in 1999, litigation costs came in at $16 billion in the same year. The situation has apparently become worse since then. Bessen and Meurer don't go as far as saying that the whole system should be abolished (as others do, for example here), but do suggest that some things should be done to change it for the better, such as reining in awards for damages and to increase the number of appeal courts able to handle patent cases.(Left: Current disputes coming out of Boston have nothing on past ones)
The IPKat, while agreeing in general with the suggested changes, admires the talent that some economists clearly have of being able to come up with any figures they like to justify the conclusion they want to arrive at. How they come up with their valuation of 'profits' from patents is, however, a little beyond his feline imaginings.
On the subject of why (or whether) the current US system is broken for other reasons, Dana Rohrabacher writes in the Washington Post (article here) that American innovators should beware new proposals to bring the US into line with the rest of the world by implementing a 'first to file' system and making publications of patent applications mandatory. By some logic-defying leaps of reasoning, he manages to equate these to direct attacks on the poor small
inventor, who would have his inventions stolen by 'technology thieves', and be unable to file the multiple applications necessary to protect his invention.(Right: Congressman Rohrabacher, supporting one sentiment the IPKat can agree with)
The IPKat thinks that Congressman Rohrabacher ought perhaps to have a little look at what happens in reality with patent applications in the rest of the world, where a first to file system appears to work quite well. The IPKat also wonders how publishing a patent application after 18 months could possibly result in any invention being stolen, since he was under the impression that part of the bargain of getting a patent is to let everyone know what it is you were trying to protect. Any answers would be gratefully received via the comment facility below.
More commentary here (Slashdot), here (Patently-O) and here (IAM blog).