tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1592950923693879170..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Economist is at it again (when it comes to patents)Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4304801128408918352016-05-13T10:10:28.033+01:002016-05-13T10:10:28.033+01:00I have to admit that I was expecting a more persua...I have to admit that I was expecting a more persuasive counter-argument from the Kats. This amounts to a rebuttal yes, but it is a rebuttal with equally empty sound-bites as those of the opposition. The truth is that on parts of the patent system, in particular those that are indifferent to whether we are patenting "slide to open" or viagra, do certainly need an overhaul for the benefit of society at large. We should not rush to the defense of the patent system every time it is attacked, especially by those from the outside. Rather, we should listen, take note of the critique and see if we can make improvements. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30621671826199464922016-05-06T17:34:43.570+01:002016-05-06T17:34:43.570+01:00The patent system is a representation of society´s...The patent system is a representation of society´s wish to encourage and reward those who make significant contributions to the quality of life by innovation; so that technological progress is not brought to a halt. The tendency of the modern global economy to reduce everyone´s profit margins to the point where going bankrupt is just one cancelled order away, forces technology companies to obtain protection for their products to escape the price competition forces that are so stringent that they could otherwise not afford any expenditure on R&D because it provides no return or promise thereof: and focus merely on manufacturing/producing/selling the same product/service as cheaply as possible as long possible and then going belly-up. The mantra of price competition being a source of human well-being, as promoted by The Economist, is actually totally flawed. The quest for a decent profit margin is not a sign of immoral exploitation: it is a sign one is doing something that someone actually really needs/wants. If these profits in any way partly arise from the granting of patent protection for significantly inventive inventions, particularly in health care, then in fact the patent system is the only thing between economic "Global Mad Max" propounded by The Economist, and the continuing technological progress is the bedrock of our quality of life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5251246016197224672016-05-06T11:23:37.242+01:002016-05-06T11:23:37.242+01:00" ... “technology”, where market share (think..." ... “technology”, where market share (think Alphabet/Google) is being driven principally by network effects and accumulation of data ... "<br /><br />Adding software patents as yet a further mechanism for concentration on top of that makes for a landscape that looks even more worrying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60319299118864416642016-05-06T10:05:40.127+01:002016-05-06T10:05:40.127+01:00Dear Neil
Nice piece.
With an economist's ha...Dear Neil<br /><br />Nice piece.<br /><br />With an economist's hat on, may I make a comment on the I, II and III?<br /><br />I - if it is a bad system (no real insight here) then what they are really saying is that somehow it is industry's fault that the government has designed that system. Wood, trees and so on.<br /><br />II - in any system of laws (including the laws governing or protecting freedom of speech and of the press)there will be abuses. If you don't like it then go to heaven - I hear (but don't personally believe) that it is quite nice there. <br /><br />III - these statements are either unsupported by any evidence (I can see anyway) or are so wide and general that ontological meaning is lost. Whichever case applies my impression is that what they are really saying is that "we don't really understand it ... it must be bad."<br /><br />Please don't get me wrong. I have plenty of criticisms of how the system works (as I do of merger control) but the idea of the system at all is not something I have a problem with. There is plenty of evidence that patents are welfare enhancing.<br /><br />AshleyAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22267665364682023742016-05-06T09:47:10.529+01:002016-05-06T09:47:10.529+01:00I haven't read "The Economist" recen...I haven't read "The Economist" recently, but in points I and II it is absolutely correct, certainly in the fields in which I work. The gaming of the system by big companies is especially egregious. Thankfully the EPO has realised to some extent what's going on and the Examiners involved (I've spoken with some of them) do their limited best to restrict some of the more outrageous cons. However, they are always playing catch-up.<br /><br />On the far side of the Atlantic, where it sometimes seems that the USPTO selects examiners on the basis of a rather unique blend of incompetence, laziness, stupidity, sheer bloody-mindedness and downright dishonesty, things are often much worse, and these obstructive patents, filed purely for that purpose, block off whole areas of legitimate research and actually impede progress.<br /><br />The patent system may not be broken, but it is certainly badly distorted and rigged against the little guy. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49347790876364655522016-05-06T09:46:21.250+01:002016-05-06T09:46:21.250+01:00"partners at European law firms have been kno..."partners at European law firms have been known to leave their jobs to become Examiners at the EPO"<br /><br />I have not heard of this at all in recent times.Enquiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40518801305677131042016-05-06T08:36:53.121+01:002016-05-06T08:36:53.121+01:00The Economist attack on patents mentions a number ...The Economist attack on patents mentions a number of legitimate problems with the patent system, including reducing the number of unenforced or weak patents. However, some of the proposed solutions, e.g. reducing patent terms and expanding the options for challenging patents without a full blown court case, seem to be unrealistic.<br /><br />Reducing patent terms is virtually impossible since nearly every country in the world is a party to the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which mandates a 20 year patent term. Amending TRIPS would be far more difficult than amending the US Constitution. Forget it. An alternative solution would be to tinker with maintenance fees payable by patent holders. Before the European Patent Office, maintenance (renewal) fees are payable every year, start the third year after filing an application and reach €2000 by around year 10. If the US adopted a similar system, rather than only charging fees after grant of a patent and making them payable every 4 years, it could have a helpful effect. <br /><br />As for out-of court options for challenging patents, these may already go too far. Witness the recent activity of Kyle Bass, a well known hedge fund manager, in using Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) before the USPTO to challenge key pharmaceutical patents in order to take advantage of the effects of the challenges on the stock prices of the companies holding the patents. Another way to reduce the number of weak patents would be to raise the quality of examination by making a job as a US Patent Examiner more attractive. This could be achieved by increasing the compensation of Examiners, particularly senior Examiners. The compensation of US Examiners is significantly less than their counterparts at the European Patent Office (EPO). In fact, partners at European law firms have been known to leave their jobs to become Examiners at the EPO. This would be unheard of in the US.<br /><br />Regrettably, any changes to maintenance fees or significantly impacting the compensation of Examiners would require the most unproductive Congress in history to stir itself from lethargy, which could be an unrealistic proposition.Interestednoreply@blogger.com