Patent Reform 2013: Pending Bills

By Dennis Crouch

I wrote earlier about the pending Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) as proposed by a bipartisan set of Congressional leaders led by Rep. Bob Goodlatte. A host of other patent related bills are also pending in the House and Senate. The following is a rundown of some:

Manufacturing Innovation in America Act of 2013 (H.R. 2605)

Tax deduction carryover for patent development expenditures where profit is made years later.

Patent Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 (S. 1013) (Senators Cornyn and Grassley)

Smaller version of Goodlatte's Innovation Act that would focus on (1) raising pleading requirements (2) limiting discovery costs (especially pre-claim-construction); and (3) awarding attorney fees for the prevailing party.

End Anonymous Patents Act (H.R. 2024)

Requirement that the patent owner regularly update ownership information in the public record, including the "ultimate parent entity."

Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013 (H.R. 2639)

Includes many provisions in parallel to the Goodlatte Innovation Act, but also includes a "sanction for abusive litigation" with mandatory review of each case by the court to ensure that no Rule 11(b) violations occurred.

MODDERN Cures Act of 2013 (H.R. 3091)

Extension of patent term for four to seven years for diagnostic medical tests. The program would be run through the FDA.

PATENT Jobs Act (H.R. 2582)

Proposed elimination of the PTO from the sequestration rules.

STOP Act (H.R. 2766)

Expanding the covered-business-method post-grant-review to also cover non-financial business methods and removal of the sunset provision. This is roughly parallel to the Patent Quality Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 866)

PACES Act (S. 1478) (Senator Cardin)

The Bill would remove certain patent infringement actions from Federal District Courts to the Court of Federal Claims. In particular, the bill focuses on causes of action against the unlicensed use patented inventions in the provision of 9-1-1, enhanced 9-1-1, or other emergency services. The CFC tends to favor the accused infringer both in terms of procedure and remedies available.

PARTS Act (S.780)

Act would prevent design patent owners from using those patents to prevent the use unauthorized spare-parts in the auto industry.

Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act (S. 627) (S. Sanders)

The bill would seemingly end drug patents with the text "no person shall have the right to exclusively manufacture, distribute, sell, or use a drug, a biological product, or a manufacturing process for a drug or biological product in interstate commerce."

159 thoughts on “Patent Reform 2013: Pending Bills

  1. The Goodlattie bill needs a 1 year time limit to get to trial and probably a limit of 3 discovery sessions unless the judge is made aware of special circumstances that make more sessions nessary. The 1 year limit is nessary to retain the incentive to create and get inventors paid especially where they need funds for other invention project funding the chund of change and down the road phylosiphy has turned the system into roberies and thugs. Large acusiations and mergers should have hearings for cheated inventors to voice the injustice and inventor security to protect them

  2. Thjey need to put the banking patents back on the patent grantable list again because the whole advancement in that field is haulted so new bank fraud methods are overtaking the previous art. That congressional passage was designed to open up new doors for money laundering and thefts so it needs reversing yesterday

  3. Drug patent destruction act by Sanders is totally regressive and backwards and the thought of it is more disincentive to create for the few remaining areas. Why are these people trying to shut down progress. If the profit margins are excessive then limit the margins to say 45% of profit after all expences. Limit non progressing R+D to a minimum and encourage breakthroughs with patents to keep costs low. Opening up new fields of invention not allowed before is the way to maximize human advancement and stimulate the economy with new jobs these regressives have got to go!

  4. The concept of looser pays for attorney fees of the other party has to be adjucated by the presiding judge as abusive to the point of a fraud attempt. New arguments without previous court presidents or new arguments establishing new justifications for awards not previously considered have to be exempt from adverse fees awards. How wealthy the established company is must also be considered and how wealthy the infringed company could have been without the infringement considered also.

  5. So long as Congress and Obama ignore small entities, all these bills will do is legalize theft.Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.”patent reform”…America Invents Act, vers 1.0, 2.0, 3.0…“This is not a patent reform bill” Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) complained, despite other democrats praising the overhaul. “This is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the right of small inventors.”Senator Cantwell is right. All these bills do is legalize theft. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. The paid puppets of banks, huge multinationals, and China continue to brain wash and bankrupt America. They should have called these bills the America STOPS Inventing Act or ASIA, because that’s where they’re sending all our jobs.The patent bill (vers 1, 2, 3, etc) is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Congress passed it and Obama signed it. Who are they working for??link to usatoday.com…Patent reform is a fraud on America. Congress and Obama are both to blame. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and destroying their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. They have already damaged the US patent system so that property rights are teetering on lawlessness. This bill will only make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. In this way large firms are able to play king of the hill and keep their small competitors from reaching the top as they have. Yet small entities create the lion’s share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” Meanwhile, the large multinationals ship more and more jobs overseas. This bill is a wholesale destroyer of US jobs. Those wishing to help fight this bill should contact us as below.Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress and Obama tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways and set America on a course for sustainable prosperity, not large corporation lobbied poverty, should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.Please see link to truereform.piausa.org… for a different/opposing view on patent reform.link to facebook.comlink to piausa.wordpress.com link to washingtonexaminer.comlink to hoover.org

  6. Speaking of innovation, a company called “Pragmatus Mobile LLC” filed several patent infringement lawsuits yesterday. Here’s claim 1:1. A portable signaling unit comprising: a speaker; a microphone; a display; a microcontroller; a user interface; a transmitter adapted to transmit a first signal via a cellular network; a first receiver adapted to receive a second signal via the cellular network; and a second receiver adapted to receive a third signal other than the first signal and second signal, wherein the third signal is other than a cellular network transmission; and the transmitter is adapted to receive signals representing data and a voice of a user, and the transmitter is adapted to transmit signals representing the data and the user’s voice; wherein the portable signaling unit is adapted to receive a security code via the user interface; and wherein the display is adapted to display a message received by the portable signaling unit via the first receiver.Now, this was filed in February 2012, but potentially has priority to January 1997. I have a few questions: (1) why did it take 15 years to present this particular combination of features, and (2) even if we take the priority claim (which goes through several CIPs) at face value, doesn’t the combination of Bluetooth (a second receiver) with an ordinary GSM cellphone (which can display text messages received by the first receiver), which was done around 1994/1995, create problems for this claim? What exactly do these guys think they invented?If it helps, the complaint explicitly asserts only claim 27, which is as follows:27. A cellular device for communicating voice and data over a cellular network, the cellular device comprising: a transmitter and a first receiver adapted to transmit cellular signals via the cellular network; and a second receiver adapted to receive a nearby signal from a device in proximity to the cellular device and the signal including first data, wherein the nearby signal is other than the cellular signals; and a user interface adapted to receive a security code; wherein the transmitter is adapted to transmit second data in response to the receipt of the first data.Same questions – Bluetooth was originally conceived as a cable replacement, such as for portable hands-free devices. With this combination, the “nearby signal” is digitized voice, while the second data is the voice after it has been run through the GSM vocoder. Somebody help me understand…

    1. What exactly do these guys think they invented?Did they identify a specific device that they believe infringes their claim?With respect to claim 27, I love the recitation of “a device copmrising … a user interface adapted to receive a security code.” Is that supposed to be a meaningful limitation? In 1997? Maybe they should have included a limitation about “at least one component being made of plastic.” You know, really futuristic stuff!

      1. They’ve sued several companies, but the only complaint I looked at involved the Kindle Fire. You are right about the user interface limitation – like, so what? That’s a problem running through both claims – the elements aren’t connected to each other in meaningful ways.I’m going to have to look up the file history to see why this was allowed.

      2. You might not be surprised to learn that “Pragmatus Mobile LLC” is related to (owned by?) Pragmatus LLC, which is managed by (owned by?) two patent attorneys.

    2. It looks to me like they believe they invented a cellular communication device that (somehow, by conventional means or by a miracle) automatically sends data (the “second data”) over a cellular network in response to (wait for it! this is huge!!!) a non-cellular signal from a nearby second device. For example, your Intelligent Toilet is overflowing. It communicates to the invented device and you get a phone call telling you to come home and clean it up.

    3. Another asserted claim, from another patent in the family:1. A method for tracking a portable signaling unit comprising:receiving, with a GPS receiver coupled to a portable signaling unit, a GPS signal; using the GPS signal to determine a position of the portable signaling unit; transmitting, from the portable signaling unit and over a wireless communication system to a computer, data regarding the position of the portable signaling unit, wherein the data is used to determine a location of the portable signaling unit; and displaying, on a display, a map having a symbol identifying the location of the portable signaling unit, wherein the display is remote from the computer and connected to the computer by a network.Yikes! My best guess, having a pretty good feel of the state of the art circa 1997 regarding the combination of cellphones with GPS (see, e.g., the “FoneFinder” patent US 6,519,463, filed Feb. 1996), is that the patentee thinks that the key feature here is that the “display is remote from the computer and connected to the computer by a network.”

      1. the patentee thinks that the key feature here is that the “display is remote from the computer and connected to the computer by a network.”Well, it’s very non-obvious. I mean, why would someone want to view the location of something on a conventional display conventionally linked to a conventional computer on a conventional network, like was old in the art at the time? Did people really think computers were useful for transmitting information about the location of portable objects way back in 1997? C’mon. That was just science fiction back then.

  7. So, we now have inter parties , ex parte, no injunctions, KSR – hindsight ‘common sense’, special extra reexamination for business method patents, and an almost a lost profits analysis needed for substantial recovery. And the cabal wants – automatic loser pay – for a trump card of leverage over the little guy. And the PTO – aka the star chamber – wants no oversight under 35 USC 145 – so even if the little guy survives the court trial and appeal, the PTO can exercise political power to assure the outcome against the disfavored class. $13 trillion in US IP assets devalued overnight. The middle class is truly the ‘forgotten man.’

  8. Personally, I think the whole issue about identifying the “ultimate parent entity” is much ado about nothing.One of the defenses to patent infringement is that the plaintiff doesn’t have standing to sue. If there is any question about ownership of the patent, this issue will be raised during litigation and the relevant facts revealed.This is little more than a PR move intended to “shame” companies that bring lawsuits via shell companies. While there may be some companies that don’t like the publicity of being an alleged patent troll, the vast majority of people simply don’t care. The public likes a good fight (particularly when it is between titans) — however, a patent litigation has got to be one of the most boring fights (except to the participants) ever witnessed.While this may “shine the light” on who is really the plaintiff, I doubt it will have any appreciable impact on the behavior of the actors. Hence it is much ado about nothing.

      1. Because enforcing a patent right is the second ‘worst thing ever’ right behind having a patent right…Rather than attacking a strawman, you might want to consider actually attacking the patent trolls who helped drive this legislation. Or you can simply continue defending them like you’ve always done and expect a different result the next time. That’s what a “crazy person” would do.

      1. The issue of “efficient breach” in the context of patent law is adequately addressed in our patent laws. Patent infringement is a strict liability tort with treble damages for willful infringement.Again, it’s fascinating watching the behavior of the Patent Cheerleaders and Apologists. This business of hiding behind shell corporations while extorting people with patents has been going on for some time. These legislative responses are inevitable because that behavior is disgusting. But recall that the Cheerleaders told us that we had no “right” to be disgusted. After all, we were told by anon (or one of his sockpuppets), that trolling behavior was “legal” and therefore (one must assume anon’s logic here) one was forbidden from finding anything distasteful about it.Reap the whirlwhind, Cheerleaders. And perhaps think about this the next time you put all your energy into defending the behavior of some money-grubbing patent attorneys who are grabbing as much cash as they can stuff in their pockets, by any means necessary, simply because “they can.”

        1. all, we were told by anon (or one of his sockpuppets), that trolling behavior was “legal”How is it illegal? Asserting a patent one owns is legal. The law also doesn’t require that you either practice the invention (quite possible since other patents may cover the technology) or be the original inventor.How is one supposed to “legally” assert one’s patent rights in today’s legal environment? Tell us all how it SHOULD be done. You certainly are of the opinion that it is being done wrong now. What needs to be done differently? What do you tell your clients when one of their patents is being infringed?

          1. Interesting … I give MM a soapbox to stand on and tell us all how a patent holder should CORRECTLY assert their patent in today’s legal environment and he is nowhere to be found.

    1. This is little more than a PR move intended to “shame” companies that bring lawsuits via shell companies. Wrong. It’s a law designed to make readily accessible to the public information about exactly who owns rights in what patents. The public is entitled this information because the rights of every member of the public are affected (and limited) by patents. Information about who owns patents and how they are being used will allow the public to determine how to shape future patent laws to promote progress in the fairest and most effective way.I doubt it will have any appreciable impact on the behavior of the actorsMaybe it will, maybe it won’t. In any event, it’s going to happen because the only argument for keeping patent ownership secret is that secrecy is helpful to “poor” (LOL) patent owners who want to threaten people with their patents. I don’t think anyone who’s been paying attention and who isn’t deeply invested in the status quo takes those arguments seriously.

      1. The public is entitled this information because the rights of every member of the public are affected (and limited) by patents.I hear violins in the background … it is sad song.Information about who owns patents and how they are being used will allow the public to determine how to shape future patent laws to promote progress in the fairest and most effective way.That is a stretch. You really think it will make a difference to the public if they now know Company XYZ owns (and is asserting) a patent?Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.It won’t. That’s the whole point.

  9. The problem about awarding a prize for FDA approval is that every drug will be equally valued. What would be better would be royalties based on US sales. But if the US went this way, the world might soon follow. Why then would anyone file patent applications on new drugs? I think they would not. So, is the patent’s disclosure of how to make the drug at all important for others to make the copies? If not, then we really do not need the patent and would simply replace the drug patent system with an FDA approval system.

    1. Ouch, what if the FDA receives two applications for the same drug? What if the second derived from the first? What if both are obvious over the prior art? I see some difficulties is eliminating examination for novelty and obviousness.

  10. I’ve mentioned this before, but when the recording statute was first past, Congress required that assignments be recorded within 3 months. Story interpreted the act to suggest that if the assignment was not recorded within 3 months, it would not be effected against a BFP. Congress then amended the statute thus, and there it has remained for more than 150 years.Now what will be the legal effect of failure to record assignments? Anyone know?

    1. Now what will be the legal effect of failure to record assignments? Anyone know?At a minimum, the legal effect should be the inability to collect damages during the period in which the proper ownership interest was not recorded.

      1. This could get real interesting if the patents are held by any limited liability entity and either the beneficiaries changed or the controlling interests changed. I once had dealings with NV Philips. Now that company is privately held … but who owns it and who controls is seem irrelevant to me. But if this law passes, companies like that would have to disclose their ownership or else….I think I see a storm brewing.

        1. Why don’t we make it mandatory that everyone has to list ALL of their personal property with the government? After all, what’s to stop the government from having such a list except a “hold over from yesteryear?” (funny thing about that yesteryear hold over 6 – look up “liberty” and the founding of this nation, and while you are at it, consider how we view the rest of our personal property). I am curious as to how all these people clamoring for more information feel about the NSA. That wasn’t even real personal property they were gathering, was it? Why are people so concerned with these hold overs from yesteryear, anyway?And before you kick up the dust of “b-b-b-ut it’s an ‘entitlement,’ understand full well that the ‘entitlement’ information exchange has already been satisfied with the Quid Pro Quo. Clearly, wanting more information AFTER the exchange of that Quid Pro Quo, which information comes from – and impacts (read that as restrains) – the alienability of property is something that is amazingly NOT being looked at critically enough on this legal forum.

          1. “Why don’t we make it mandatory that everyone has to list ALL of their personal property with the government?”For most typical types of personal property of really high value we already do don’t we? Houses, land, cars, boats, aircraft etc. etc. I see no reason to exclude patents as they are supposedly becoming more valuable by the day.

            1. Other than a recorder of deeds for land and the improvements thereto (i.e., a house), where do I find public records that allows me to search who owns the Ferrari that I see tooling around the neighborhood? where is the boat registry? the plane registry?

            2. where do I find public records that allows me to search who owns the Ferrari that I see tooling around the neighborhood?I would look that up in the same statute that makes owning a Ferrari the basis of a strict liability cause of action against someone else who had no idea Ferraris even existed.

            3. IANAE – thanks for helping my argument against 6MM. 6MM tried to make the comparison to personal property that is not provide for a strict liability right. Like you said – owning a Ferrari doesn’t give me a right to stop others from owning one. “a strict liability cause of action against someone else who had no idea Ferraris even existed.” This last part of your sentence is curious. How would one not know Ferarris existed if the Ferrari (i.e., the patent) is open for public inspection at the PTO? If publication with the PTO does not serve to notify the public, then why would redecoration of ownership notify the public?

            4. If publication with the PTO does not serve to notify the public,What do you mean, “if”?If publication by the PTO served to notify the public, we wouldn’t have a marking provision, all infringement would be willful, and the person having ordinary skill in the art would be an actual person. Recordation of ownership is useful for people who are looking for the information. You know, those diligent businesspeople who do their clearance research before putting out a product, and people on the business end of an anonymous-ish threat of infringement litigation.

            5. The ‘what’ is already there and is all you actually need for any of your diligence.As to publication, I have offered the suggestion in the past that to make the USPTO’s publication a de facto notice would actually be a better policy as it would serve the ‘promote’ (as in spread the word) function an imperative to all businesses operating in any pertinent area to engage the Quo already gathered.Further, the Quo already gathered (the ‘what’) is the only material information that is necessary in the patent exchange – anything else simlpy is not a part of the bargain.Lastly, PHOSITA would not be affected as it serves a different purpose.Three more strikes for you, IANAE. Head back to the bench now.

            6. Now as to whether or not those records are searchable is another matter. You’ll need to talk to your local representatives about that.

            7. Though I should add that in many states their DMV records are available through private entities and can effectively be used to find out who owns a certain vehicle. Or at least they could, that practice was being reviewed in several states a few years back.

            8. Other than a recorder of deeds for land and the improvements thereto (i.e., a house)Yes, let’s ignore that inconvenient fact for the moment and continue pretending that allowing the public to know who owns a patent is an unprecedented assault on Thomas “Founder” Jefferson’s dream of a country where white males are truly free!!! where do I find public records that allows me to search who owns the Ferrari that I see tooling around the neighborhood? where is the boat registry? the plane registry?If you want to determine who’s responsible for a plane, boat, or car that you suspect of being stolen or which is otherwise in violation of a law or which adversely affects your rights to enjoy life’s freedoms, it’s not terribly difficult to do that. Most states have a registration system to facilitate that process and planes, boats and cars whose ownership can’t be determined are subject to being towed away where they can’t bother anyone anymore regardless of who actually owns them. Maybe you’ve never owned any of these objects before?

            9. You are imposing criminal liability into civil matters. If you want parity, I am all for having infringement be a criminal matter. I record my property with the USPTO, a description and ownership of which is duly recorded and open for public inspection. You steal it (i.e., infringe). You pay criminal fine or go to jail. Oh, and I can still sue you in a civil court for restitution. Deal?

            10. You are imposing criminal liability into civil matters. If you want parity, I am all for having infringement be a criminal matter.Keep digging.

            11. “on Thomas “Founder” Jefferson’s dream of a country where white males are truly free!!!”Really? What on earth does this type of reply do for anyone?

            12. I can only speak for myself, but it amuses me. It’s called satire, anon – you should look it up. MM is pretty good at it.

          2. “‘entitlement’ information exchange”The “entitlement information exchange”, lol wuuuuut? It’s an entitlement, from the moment you apply for it, till the day the issued patent expires. Just the same as medicare coverage, medicaid coverage, SNAP, SS and all the rest. Why do you feel like the government entitlement program here all of a sudden ends when you disclose? Because if it did then there would be no right to sue. “Why are people so concerned with these hold overs from yesteryear, anyway?”Because they become more offensive to the senses as more and more people jump on the abuse bandwagon. Stories from NPR about empty offices in TX supposedly being corporations (shell companies to be sure) help with the public perceptions of course. “Clearly, wanting more information AFTER the exchange of that Quid Pro Quo, which information comes from – and impacts (read that as restrains) – the alienability of property is something that is amazingly NOT being looked at critically enough on this legal forum.”Tell us how it restrains and I’ll be a little tiny bit more on your side, maybe. How does people knowing who owns an item restrict its alienability?

            1. “Offensive to the senses” is directly related to the anti-patent dust that is being kicked up.For that reason alone, this wanting for more should be critically looked at.After all, a pavlovian response is not the same as a thoughtful response.You need to THINK and not be such a lemming.

            2. “For that reason alone, this wanting for more should be critically looked at.”Critcally look at it all you’d like brosef.

          3. Why don’t we make it mandatory that everyone has to list ALL of their personal property with the government?Ooooh, so scary! First they make us record ownership of our patents. Then … fascism! It’s a Tea Party Wet Dream! Call Ted Cruz!

          4. the alienability of property is something that is amazingly NOT being looked at critically enough on this legal forum.I agree. When are you going to look that issue critically instead of just ranting about it like a “crazy person”?

      2. LOL – from the ‘master’ of sharing personal information…Why don’t you lead by example Malcolm and share your personal information? And I am not talking about the army of sockpuppets you employ at PatentDocs.

    2. The comment on the other thread is appropriate: who was meant to be protected by the recording?It was not the nanny state and it certainly was not Big Corp who can use that extra information to attempt to resurrect their Armageddon patent thicket strategies. Again, ask yourself exactly who coined the term “Troll” to begin with and why. It was NOT to protect the ‘government’ or the ‘people.’The legal effect is limited to the partied the recording was meant to protect.And that was not infringers “in their own home” or wherever the infringement is taking place. Infringement is a strict liability tort which does not matter AT ALL about the owner of the patent property. This merely amounts to a shameful attempt to curb alienability of property and to enable efficient breach of the right to exclude. No one has yet provided a cogent reason why knowing the ‘who’ is important when the ‘what’ is sufficiently known.

      1. You understand that economists view efficient breach (which term is not usually applied to tortious behavior) as a good thing, right?

        1. I am curious whether the theory of efficient breach involves the knowing of the parties involved rather than just the”rights breached.” Where can I find the premiere thinking/author on this economic theory?

          1. I am curious whether the theory of efficient breach involves the knowing of the parties involved rather than just the”rights breached.”Just like the theory of injunctive relief in patent cases, it involves an assessment of the actual harm to the actual parties involved, which depends on who they are.You don’t need “the premiere thinking” for this, you can get by with merely “thinking”. Give it a whirl.

          2. The theory of efficient breach is generally applied to contracts, so yes, the breaching party knows precisely who is involved. As far as I know, anon is the premiere thinker when it comes to applying this theory to patent infringement, so you’re in exactly the right place.

            1. “anon is the premiere thinker when it comes to applying this theory to patent infringement, “Maybe, but I think I’ve seen some other people bring it up. Perhaps old sockies of his. It does rather boggle the mind though as to how he always thinks of it as a bad thing even as economics and pretty much all economists I know of see it as a good thing which is usually done in bad circumstances.

          3. “Knowing who” has nothing to do with the patent right.That’s the concept behind alienability of property – the right is the same no matter who owns it.

            1. “That’s the concept behind alienability of property – the right is the same no matter who owns it.”Made that up yourself huh? According to the rest of the world the “concept behind” alienability is simply the “concept” of the ability of the property in question to be transferred or sold to others.http://legal-dictionary.thefre…Why you keep on making up “concepts” behind ordinary legal terms that simply do not exist continues to boggle the mind. Are you sure that you went through lawlschool at some point and aren’t just an amateur playing the role the best he can?

            2. You are not paying attention, 6.At all.Try to find the limitation or dependence of the right on the who the owner is.It is not there.

        2. “You understand that economists view efficient breach (which term is not usually applied to tortious behavior) as a good thing, right?”Most assuredly. You understand that the best 1ies have a kernel of truth, right?

      2. No one has yet provided a cogent reason why knowing the ‘who’ is important when the ‘what’ is sufficiently known.Pllenty of “cogent reasons” have been provided. You just don’t accept them because you are very attached to the secret ownership of patents. Coincidentally, you also happen to be one of the most loudmouthed cheerleaders for “more patents, all the time” and for making the USPTO’s job more difficult at every turn. You also habitually defend the worst behavior of patent trolls and relentless attack anyone who criticizes them. You also spent years trolling this blog with sockpuppets and attacking commenters who disagreed with you, all the while pretending that your manufactured crowd was responding to a “vocal minority.” Now you want to take about who is “shameful”? LOL.a shameful attempt … to enable efficient breach of the right to exclude.What’s “shameful” about the passage of a law that enables the public to readily determine who owns a government-granted “right” that limits the public’s rights? Or to put it another way, if that is “shameful”, then what is not shameful on your planet? What about hiding behind a shell corporation to keep your identify a secret while harassing people with your junk patent? No shame in that apparently. You really are a piece of work. But keep it up. Like I said: it’s people like you that are the driving force for this legislation.

      3. ” No one has yet provided a cogent reason why knowing the ‘who’ is important when the ‘what’ is sufficiently known.”anon, you sell yourself short. In fact, you have done a great job at providing a “cogent reason why knowing the ‘who’ is important” – your idea simply needs a little development. As I mentioned, “efficient breach,” usually discussed in the context of contracts, is regarded by economists as a good thing, since it promotes a more efficient allocation of resources. Applied to patent infringement, we might call it “efficient infringement” in that context, it should do the same thing. One of the chief criticisms of the efficient breach theory in the contract domain is that the theory neglects a moral component to the act of contracting – the breaching party is breaking a promise that it made. But there is not the same moral component attached to patent infringement – an infringer is not breaking any promise it has made. Thus, your efficient infringement theory is even more robust than the well-document efficient breach theory.Extending your theory a little bit more, I think it is quite apparent that efficient infringement is promoted by more transparency or, as an economist might put it, by the reducing of information asymmetries. Efficient licensing is also promoted. Knowing the owner of a patent gives the public lots of information about the extent to which the patented concept is being exploited, as well as some information about how the patent might be valued by its owner, which could be quite different than the value that is potentially realizable by others. I think economists are pretty much unanimous with respect to the idea that more information about asset valuations is a good thing, as it promotes efficiency by facilitating the movement of resources to their most efficient uses.To sum things up, I think your efficient infringement justification for transparent ownership of patents is brilliant. Thanks for sharing it. You should write a paper.

        1. there is not the same moral component attached to patent infringement – an infringer is not breaking any promise it has made.Indeed. A possible exception lies where a would-be infringer has contracted with the patent owner and taken a license, and then refuses to obey the license terms. In that case, the “moral component” of patent infringement has been addressed by society in the form of treble damages. No doubt the most thoughtful among us would prefer jail time or a public flogging for such horrific violations of the public trust. But at the end of the day we are a nation of technologically-ignorant socialist wimps who abhor the concept of personal property. How else to explain these oppressive decrees? Now if you’ll excuse me I need to attend to some legal matters. I’ve been accused of willfully using my computer to rank some candy bar companies and sending the information to a third party in an encrypted form.

        2. I am glad we stripped away morality from patent infringement… and I am sincere in this statement.I like this theory, but I don’t think people are doing the analysis as I see it. In a contractual setting (strict liability), I know the cost to continue under the contract vs. breaching and having a court impose contractual damages, including restitutionary damages. I would apply this theory to patents as: I know the cost of not infringing, i.e., the costs to do without the invention or designing around. I must weigh this against the cost of infringing the patent and potentially being held to pay to use the invention (assuming I’m not enjoined).Now, where others appear to be applying the efficient breach theory is: I weigh the cost of not infringing and designing around with my costs of paying damages to the patentee, which damages may be preconditioned on who the patentee is (i.e. NPE, university, solo, or practicing entity). So the basis for needing to know the owner of the patent is whether I can assess the extent of relief a patent owner may get (based on the patentee status) when calculating whether I want to “breach” (i.e., infringe the patent).Thoughts?

          1. Efficiency here has to do with the calculus of getting away with patent infringement because the patent holder can be determined to be an entity that cannot sustain a costly enforcement campaign, or may have other assets that can be attacked in a Patent Armageddon counter attack (and no, patent thickets are not a good thing, and yes, the ability of the so-called “Troll’ to bust thickets is a good thing).When you enable attacks on such collateral matters, you play to the hand of the Big Corp, and innovation suffers (think i4i).The move here for efficient breach comes from the Infringers’ Rights handbook. The more you can denigrate patents and those that try to enforce their rights, the more any such breach seems ‘reasonable.’ As I have reminded people before, think about who exactly coined the term “Troll” and why exactly they coined that term. It was not for the benefit of the government or for the benefit of the people. The purposeful denigration was for the benefit of Big Corp.Note too the flavor of the responses supporting such breach, the ‘who’ if you will of the supporters here: the patents are bad (and enforcement is bad) crowd. Every position offered in support of Infringers’ RIghts is a part of the anti-patent script.

            1. “Note too the flavor of the responses supporting such breach, the ‘who’ if you will of the supporters here: the patents are bad (and enforcement is bad) crowd.”Ah, the argument ad hominem – I’ve missed you. For the record, Mr. Intellectual Honesty, I’ve never said that patents are bad or that enforcement is bad, and I don’t think any other serious commenter here has, either. I will go on the record as saying that bad patents are bad, as is bad-faith enforcement of bad patents.

            2. Wrong (again) Leopold.Character is very much a proper focus – especially on a thread wherein certain people want to know more about the ‘who’ and yet typically those people are the ones hiding more of that very thing on these boards.Such duplicity is a part of the position rightfully under discussion.And for the record – you are (again) doing that thing where Malcolm’s rampant actions escape your notice and your singular focus on me is plainly off. ” and I don’t think any other serious commenter here has, either” is an odd statement – are you purposefully leaving the most voluminous poster on the boards out of the discussion for a particular reason? Are you aware of how badly that reflects on your ‘objectivity?’

            3. If you want to know more about me then you should ask me out on a date if you’re a super hot chic. Or have a highly paid call girl do your bidding and have her ask me out on a date if you’re not. I’ll tell you or her everything you’d like to know.

            4. Sorry 6 – simply list the information here as you would want from others. It’s that simple. Are you willing to live up to your professed ideals or not?Thought not.

            5. I don’t particularly want other information from others. I usually just take such information from their actions that they take. For instance, you’re totally the victor, as you were kind enough to admit for us all, before you knew other people besides me knew. And of course this is after you went back to swearing up and down you’re an attorney. What “ideals” have a “professed”?

            6. Nice attempt at deflection, 6.Dropping back into accusing me of being a person that I flat out told you I was not, on a topic that you broke your promise on is not a very intelligent way to respond.Clearly you are not willing to back up your views on what is ‘fundamental’ between two parties.That only reinforces the lack of credibility of your position.Any time you want to have another discussion that ends up with you thrashing your own views, I’m up for it. It’s always fun.

            7. “topic that you broke your promise on”Wait I broke a promise? I made no promise on that “topic”. They found you out on their own brosef. “Clearly you are not willing to back up your views on what is ‘fundamental’ between two parties.”Sure I am, what is fundamental, as I’d noted originally, is that it is a dispute between the two parties (or sometimes more) and also that there are certain remedies that are likewise rather fundamental. What would you like me to do to “back this up”? The only thing I’m not willing to do is put up the straw man you so desperately desire me to put up for you to knock down.

            8. I am not asking for any ‘strawman’ 6.I am asking for the very thing you say is fundamental. We are having a dispute here and I think that knowing who you actually are and your list of personal property “would be nice.”You seem most unwilling to provide what you are demanding others provide.Why is that?

  11. End Anonymous Patents Act (H.R. 2024)Requirement that the patent owner regularly update ownership information in the public record, including the “ultimate parent entity.”This seems like a no-brainer that’s a long time coming.

    1. This seems like a back-door way to make it easier for certain factions of the public to disparage entities that they disagree with philosophically.

      1. I would be interested as to how this is a way to make “certain factions” of the public, aka the public I guess, to disparage “entities” (trolls?) that they disagree with “philosophically” (aka economically/monetarily?). I mean, it seems to me mostly like US government and US people would simply like to know who ultimately owns what.

        1. To paraphrase the immortal words of the former Secretary of State, “What difference would it make?” Form the patentee’s side: What rights of the patentee are harmed by not requiring this registration? There is only the notice function that I talked about in the other thread. The entity asserting the patent has the right to assert no matter if the ownership is made public or not. (We haven’t even addressed a licensees right to assert – does this law require a licensor to also be listed as having a vested interest?)From the potential infringer’s perspective. The ultimate legal question of validity or infringement has no bearing on whether the potential infringer knows the owner or not. Courts will adjudicate validity and infringement based on the facts. If, however, ownership plays a role in whether you respect the intellectual property rights of others, that is the philosophical difference I mentioned before. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

          1. Wait, wait, what difference does it make to know who owns something? “The entity asserting the patent has the right to assert no matter if the ownership is made public or not.”Currently, though as to why this is has yet to be explained, except for it being a hold over from yesteryear. I like how you presented all “perspectives” except the two relevant “perspectives”. That of the government and that of the general public. You know, the people backing this whole entitlement program. “If, however, ownership plays a role in whether you respect the intellectual property rights of others, that is the philosophical difference I mentioned before. “Mmmm, well at least I was right in that what you had to say about that is interesting. I think though on the whole that it depends more on whether you respect the law at all, regardless of who it is that is the ultimate owner rather than depending on respecting a given patent/portfolio depending on who exactly owns it. I would submit that the whole paradigm of anonymous ownership breeds contempt and disrespect for the whole entitlement program. Kind of like absurdly high statutory awards for copyright infringement. Imagine the outcry and added disrespect if they didn’t even have to register the copyright.

            1. the whole paradigm of anonymous ownership breeds contempt and disrespect for the whole entitlement program.No kidding. But if you’re going to be held in contempt because of your contemptible behavior, then I suppose you would prefer to be anonymous.When you look at it that way, then “in-house’s” position starts to make a little more sense.

            2. What makes sense of someone screaming for someone else’s extra information on personal property (which is what the patent right is – by law), when that person screaming for more, um, visibility, is the blog’s most secretist poster?No answers yet on the lack of inclusion in the Patently-O community (6′s FAILED attempt to show that placing his moniker in secrecy removes one from that community).No answers yet on the ability of that same person to place an internal web site tag in the old software.So what makes sense?What makes sense when the cabal of those who have chosen to place their comments in secrecy (note this is beyond the use of a pseudonym – which is a level of secrecy that would be objectively reasonable), are the same wanting others to share more of their personal identities?The list of those in the new software here at Patently-O who have chosen an upper level of secrecy:Malcolm Mooney,Leopold BloomIANAE6Hmm, what is in common with this group?

            3. Wait wait wait, I have “chosen an ‘upper level’” of secrecy by pushing a button? I mean, if you’re that concerned about my pushing the button then I guess I could push it again.

            4. the cabal of those who have chosen to place their comments in secrecy … are the same wanting others to share more of their personal identitiesLOL. Because commenting on a blog is just like owning a patent.Hmm, what is in common with this group?We’re all intelligent enough to know how to activate the privacy settings on this software.

            5. “Because commenting on a blog is just like owning a patent.”Put your money where your mouth is, Malcolm.After all, you took a shot at the poster ‘in-house’ based on his blog post. You equated anonymity with contemptible behavior, so show the ‘right’ way for everyone (or kindly STFU).Or is this simply more of your standard duplicity?

            6. “I like how you presented all ‘perspectives’ except the two relevant ‘perspectives’. That of the government and that of the general public. You know, the people backing this whole entitlement program.”I might quibble with whether the patent system should be called an “entitlement program,” but I think you make an excellent point, 6.

            7. The perspective of the government (and the people that the government represent) has always been there: Quid Pro Quo.The public information is the patent itself.This here is wanting more. Why? For whom? Objectively, all that you need is already public: the ‘what.’Open your eyes people.

            8. “Objectively, all that you need is already public: the ‘what.’”Idk anon, seems like it would be nice to know if the person accusing you is actually just your competitor whom you can counter-sue on your own patents if you know it is him instead of his anon privateer.

            9. Your ‘want’ of a ‘nice to know’ should not override the right of the owner to make the decision of whether to share his ownership or not.All you need to know is already there.There is no place in the Quid Pro Quo for such restraints on alienability of personal property.There is no specific safety reason or public danger that requires knowing the ‘who’ when the ‘what’ is perfectly available.

            10. 6isnot – “I think though on the whole that it depends more on whether you respect the law at all, regardless of who it is that is the ultimate owner rather than depending on respecting a given patent/portfolio depending on who exactly owns it.” That’s the entire point I was trying to elicit from the board. We seem to be moving to a society that only wants to respect IPRs of “respectable” companies. And “respectable” is defined by moral relativism. My Orwell quote above and response from 6MM proved (hence my QED) that some people on this board believe that some IPR rights are more important than others (i.e. a troll’s patents versus University’s patents).

            11. some people on this board believe that some IPR rights are more important than others (i.e. a troll’s patents versus University’s patents).Not sure what you mean by “more important”.But you really need to step out of your bubble and understand that it’s not just “some people on this board” but our society that is making a decision about how the patent system can be improved. “respectable” is defined by moral relativismOh noes! Next you’ll be arguing that making patent ownership transparent is the worse thing since slavery.

            12. From the conclusion of the 2013 GAO report: “Public discussion surrounding patent infringement litigation often focuses on the increasing role of NPEs. However, our analysis indicates that regardless of the type of litigant, lawsuits involving software-related patents accounted for about 89 percent of the increase in defendants between 2007 and 2011, and most of the suits brought by PMEs involved software-related patents. This suggests that the focus on the identity ofthe litigant—rather than the type of patent—may be misplaced. [emphasis mine]link link to gao.gov…page 45.Bubbles are fun to pop!

            13. If you’d like to discuss the GAO report, we could do so. I’m curious, if most of the suits brought by PMEs involve software (aka creative writing, a non-useful art to be sure) and if 89% of the increase in defendants in the period cited is because of software related complaints then how does one draw the conclusion that the identity of the litigant, rather than the type of patent might be misplaced? Seems to me like both might be to “blame”.

            14. The spin here of software as a “non-useful art” is simply ridiculous.Or is this a part of your ‘famous’ character, 6?

            15. Simply ridiculous! Simply preposterous I say sir! Ludicrous! Outrageous! Out of this world! Bonkers! And all the while so sadly the case.

            16. The spin here of software as a “non-useful art” is simply ridiculous.Is writing software more like writing, or is it more like designing a new structure to maximize heat exchange in your hamster cage?Seems more like writing to me. And it also would explain why a majority of coputer programmers are opposed to patenting software.

            17. “Seems more like writing to me”How can this fallacy be tolerated as Malcolm has volunteered the admission against interest in knowing the proper controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?This would surely earn a sanction in a court room. And yet, somehow this blatantly ridiculous position (coupled with a n insult – hamster cage? really?) and a strawman (since when does the lemming crowd of non-legal understanding ‘coputer programmers’ have anything to do with a legal discussion?I sincerely hope the ‘norms’ of conversation are above those of slashdot, techdirt and ars technica when it comes to holding a conversation on the law.

            18. True – I should have said Malcolm’s attempted insult.But most like all of his other insults, even though they only result in making him look bad, the reason for the new software was so that such poor blogging would not happen.

            19. “But most like all of his other insults, even though they only result in making him look bad, the reason for the new software was so that such poor blogging would not happen.”Yeah, I think. The new software doesn’t do anything to prevent poor writing, either.

            20. >>software … creative writing, a non-useful art to be sure6, you know that is not true. And frankly it is silly. But the creative part should give you pause. Does creative have anything to do with the patent act 6? I think you know it does. And could it be what we want to provide incentives for? I think you know that we do.

            21. It always feels like creative writing to me when I perform some programming. Especially if I’m making a vidya game. “Does creative have anything to do with the patent act 6?”Yeah I think they probably judicially excepted those sorts of things, and also made a rule regarding printed matter in the 103 context which is relevant. “And could it be what we want to provide incentives for?”Nah I think that was one of those things we want to be careful not to provide patent “incentives” for.

            22. I see you want to continue to be silly. See Noam Chomsky. The machine is only there to run the program. The machine is worthless otherwise. The program is everything.So, either everything is nothing, or you are silly twit.

            23. “The machine is worthless otherwise”idk about that, most of them could run other programs besides “the program”. “So, either everything is nothing”I don’t see why it can’t be something other than nothing. Perhaps “everything” can be, say, oh, I don’t know, a exercise in creative writing.

            24. the focus on the identity of the litigant—rather than the type of patent—may be misplacedOr not. Frankly, I’d prefer to focus on both.Bubbles are fun to pop!Keep trying.

            25. If there is an illegal action going on, the proper response is to focus on the illegality. The proper focus has never been to add restraints to alienability of property.This should be an easily recognized legal building block.

            26. How is adding transparency a “restraint to alienability of property”? Seriously how does this link get made in your mind brain?

            27. If there is an illegal action going on, the proper response is to focus on the illegality. The proper focus has never been to add restraints to alienability of property.Whether or its “proper” in your view or not, the fact is that our society has put restraints on “the alienability” of all kinds of property since pretty much forever. As usual, the existence of people like “anon” who espouse extreme libertarian views out of one side of their mouth and extreme patent-lovin’ views out of the other continues to baffle the ordinary observer.

            28. Why do you want to focus on the ‘who?’Because I’m a sensible capitalist who has heard of eBay v. MercExchange?

            29. This suggests that the focus on the identity of the litigant—rather than the type of patent—may be misplacedLitigation follows the money, and there is a LOT of money in software. Oh wait, software is nothing but an abstract idea [cue eye roll].

            30. Litigation follows the moneyTranslation: greedy people who don’t want to do honest work for a living “follow the money”, exploit loopholes and weakness in our legal system, and sue people with deep pockets.”Litigation” is just a general term that encompasses the behavior I just described, among many other forms of defensible legal actions.I wonder how many of the Texas Cheerleaders here who complain about the “big boys” and pretend to champion the poor and middle-class are out there on other blogs clamoring for “tort reform” (another pasttime of Texas Republicans). I’m guessing just about all of them.

            31. Translation: greedy people who don’t want to do honest work for a living “follow the money”Translation … I don’t like being sued so I’m going to call the other side greedy.exploit loopholes and weakness in our legal system, and sue people with deep pocketsTranslation … I don’t like it when smart attorneys make smart decisions that make money for their clients.I’m guessing just about all of them.Bad at patent law and bad at guessing.

            32. “My Orwell quote above and response from 6MM proved (hence my QED) that some people on this board believe that some IPR rights are more important than others (i.e. a troll’s patents versus University’s patents).”i’m not sure if your posts prove that or not, but sure, MM does indeed feel that way so far as I’m aware. And yes, others feel that way as well. No need to “prove it”, they’ll pretty much admit it. Though as I said, on this particular topic, I will maintain that when it comes to the de-anonymization of patent ownership what is of more concern is what I mentioned rather than how much certain parties respect certain other individual party’s rights.

            33. Clearly the desire of the founding fathers to promote unfettered alienability of property is being impinged.That award winning journalism that a certain former director of the USPTO referenced needs to be examined yet again.

            34. the desire of the founding fathers to promote unfettered alienability of property is being impinged.Beyond parody.

            35. The post blocked below is NOT the only post that clearly falls below an objective ‘norm’ for conversation.What is that ‘norm?’ How can anyone objectively tell? The name-calling remains rampant. The games and strawmen remain rampant.”Mommy, why is that man naked?”

          2. We haven’t even addressed a licensees right to assert – does this law require a licensor to also be listed as having a vested interest?I hope so.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.Quoting Orwell to justify giving anonymous people the right to tell me what I can and can not do in my own f–king house? That’s pretty funny. Please keep it up. The more you talk, the sweeter this victory over toxic patent skumbags is going to taste.

            1. The fact that you may be annoyed that anonymous entities might be able to tell you what you can do or not do in your own house, but you are presumably comfortable with known entities telling you what you can and cannot not do is amusing.

            2. The fact that you may be annoyed that anonymous entities might be able to tell you what you can do or not do in your own house, but you are presumable comfortable with known entities telling you what you can and cannot not do is amusing.You’ve presumed incorrectly.But here’s another presumption for everyone to contemplate: “in-house” is far less concerned about “philosophy” than he/she is about his/her employer or his/her company being “disparaged” (directly or indirectly) by “certain factions of the public” who find the actions of patent trolls distasteful.

          1. You know anon, a patent dispute is fundamentally a dispute between two parties. I know you like to pretend that is not the case but surely you know enough to realize that it is the case. If in the dispute you are unable to avail yourself of all the normal remedies in such a situation that you would have if you had information as to whom your accuser really is then you lack fundamental means to defend yourself.

            1. So 6, do you think the government should then have the power to know and list all personal property of everyone so that every dispute between any party would have this “fundamental means” of knowing who has what personal property (beyond the already publicly identified public ‘what” already known)?Would you be in favor of such ‘universal’ knowledge for all disputes? Such disputes, as you might imagine would include ‘conversations’ on blogs and would you be comfortable having all of your personal property catalogued and available to your opponent to review? Please put your money (practically literally) where your mouth is and start that process. Start with your real identity, then list all of your personal property.If you all of a sudden do not favor such ‘universal’ knowledge, please explain your inconsistency. After all, you make it out that such knowledge is a fundamental means to defend myself.Oh wait, you want to redefine ‘normal’ and redefine what personal property means.I suggest that you look into the concept a bit more.

            2. “So 6, do you think the government should then have the power to know and list all personal property of everyone so that every dispute between any party would have this “fundamental means” of knowing who has what personal property (beyond the already publicly identified public ‘what” already known)?”Just of the “personaly property” being created and isued by it, aka the US gov. That would do me anon. Likewise, if state govs create and issue some property sure, the state should be able to know and list all it’s property that it is making. Indeed, I believe they do that in many contexts.

            3. That seems like an awful(ly) arbitrary distinction on something you initially dubbed “fundamental.”After all, isn’t the issue between two parties? (or does your self-serving logic always falter upon closer examination)

            4. Also, 6, you should be aware that the status legally given to patents is NOT “personal property created and issued by the US gov,” but is ONLY personal property.Thus, the distinction you wish to make is arbitrary – by pure reading of the law.Again – you are wanting more of something that there simply is no legal right to take.

            5. No “legal right”? Brother, the congress can take more of this “something” if they feel like it. Period. If you think otherwise you’ve gone completely bonkers crazy.

            6. Well that’s part of the position that I’m currently advancing, and that the congress is advancing. I’m not very concerned with whether or not it compels you, and neither are they. We’re rather more concerned with whether or not the congress decides to do this. #pickingwinnersandlosers

            7. The rationale justifying the action (or lack thereof) seems a tad important.Again – who exactly coined the pejorative “Troll” and exactly why?Open your eyes.

            8. I dubbed the dispute and certain normal remedies fundamental. I did not dub the having of, or provision of information to be fundamental. I simply noted that not having information as to who the other party is leads to situations where you don’t have access to many of the normal ordinary, and fundamental, remedies. That’s not an “arbitrary” distinction at all. And yes, the issue is between two parties.

            9. Your ‘dubbing’ falls to the Oh so very Carroll fallacy.Your logic fails. Unless of course, you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.Thought not.

            10. Ahh, so my presenting my views “falls to a fallacy that anon made up”. I see. Very persuasive stuff there anon.

            11. The Accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do CRP doesn’t work for Malcolm and surely it doesn’t work for you.I suggest you either attempt to respond with some semblance of logic or simply admit defeat.Of course, you could also try to show some integrity and act in accordance with your professed beliefs…Thought not.

      2. a back-door way to make it easier for certain factions of the public to disparage entities that they disagree with philosophically.Oh noes! Patent entities are going to be disparaged by “factions of the public”! Everyone start clutching your pearls!And for the record: there’s nothing “back door” about this legislation. We’ve been discussing it (and encouraging it) for years.

  12. Hahahaha, Rader thinks that Alice was his greatest failure. Indeed, he apparently just forgot to bust out the incredibly persuasive powas of Alappat and carry an easy unanimous vote for his side. link to law360.com

  13. Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act (S. 627) (S. Sanders)The bill would seemingly end drug patents with the text “no person shall have the right to exclusively manufacture, distribute, sell, or use a drug, a biological product, or a manufacturing process for a drug or biological product in interstate commerce.”http://www.keionline.org/node/…To be clear, while the bill would have that effect, it replaces monopolies with different incentives:The more ambitious bill is the Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act, which would apply to all prescription drugs. The narrower proposal is the Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act, which would only apply to treatments for HIV/AIDS. The Medical Innovation Prize Fund would create a prize fund equal of .55 percent of US GDP, which is more than $80 billion per year at current levels of U.S. GDP. The HIV/AID Prize Fund would be funded at .02 percent of U.S. GDP, which is about $3 billion per year at current levels of U.S. GDP. The federal government and private health insurance companies would co-fund the prizes, according to formulas set out in the bills. The cost of the prize funds would be more than offset by the savings from the introduction of generic competition for products. Both bills have some similar features to Senator Sanders’ earlier prize fund bills, but there are also a number of changes. Among those changes are the introduction of an open source dividend element to the bills, which would have at least 5 percent of the prize money going to persons or communities that put knowledge, data, materials or technology into the public domain, or provide royalty free and non-discriminatory access to patents and other intellectual property rights. …(3) By de-linking research and development incentives from product prices, and by eliminating legal monopolies to sell products, it is possible to induce investments that are medically more important, procure products at low prices from competitive suppliers, radically lower pricing barriers for access to new medicines, reduce wasteful marketing and research and development activities, and dramatically lower the overall costs of acquiring innovation, while expanding access to that innovation.Kudos to Senator Sanders. A great idea and an excellent example of one of many alternatives to the current scheme.

    1. Well if MM, a person from bio, is on board, then I don’t see why I shouldn’t be. I guess I’ll go along with the last one as well. I’m still on the fence about the design patents for auto parts one though.

    2. I’ll give you credit, you certainly put your money where your mouth is.The Medical Innovation Prize Fund would create a prize fund equal of .55 percent of US GDP, which is more than $80 billion per year at current levels of U.S. GDP.The problem I see with this is that you have the government deciding who gets what from a huge pool of money. While I am not anti-government per se (far from it), it seems to me that this Prize Fund has a huge potential for abuse.Granted, it isn’t like the current system can be gamed. However, I think a competitive market is better suited than the government to identify the value of a product.reduce wasteful marketing and research and development activitiesYes. Because we always knows beforehand what lines of research are going to prove fruitful and what ones are not.The problem with the medical system in this country is that there is little incentive for those with the market power to drive down costs to actually do so. Most companies (i.e., the buyers of much of private insurance) infrequently change their providers (sure way to incite your employees) so the competition between insurance companies is not great. Additionally, if the “margin” for an insurance company is X% of its total premiums received, then it is to their advantage to find excuses to raise its premiums … e.g., by pay higher costs. Put another way, insurance companies actually make more money with higher medical costs because they can justify higher premiums.

      1. A different tactic of “close the patent doors.”Who benefits from the abolition of the right of exclusivity? Big Corp (the right) , that’s who. Sure, this scheme will give a certain amount of money to the inventors, probably just enough to appear legitimate. But the ones who can compete more effectively on pure size and naked market power are the ones who really benefit here. Let someone else do the painstaking error-prine R&D. Once a ‘prize’ is found, then let the big boys have the prize for basically nothing.The patent system used to run on both a carrot and stick approach – don’t share (for the Quid Pro Quo) and run the risk of someone else being awarded the stick. The AIA and the Prior User RIght dilution of that concept seems not to be enough for those who want to attack the patent system. Here, let’s give a token nibble to one (ignoring the level of effort in the failed attempts to find a prize), eliminate the patent system that was put together and made America have the highest level of innovation in the world because, um, because, why again?THINK people. Think.

      2. “However, I think a competitive market is better suited than the government to identify the value of a product.”It may very well be but is that identification of value of a product by a “competitive market” worth the inefficiency incurred by a government entitlement program to enable that “competitive” (read not competitive at all) market to perform said identification? Remember, we’re talking about drugs that they end up having a monopoly on usually. There is no “competitive market” at play. “Yes. Because we always knows beforehand what lines of research are going to prove fruitful and what ones are not.”I think they’re talking about reducing the costs of marketing and the outright duplication of research by different, competing, firms. They’re not talking about gaining foreknowledge of the future. “The problem with the medical system in this country is that there is little incentive for those with the market power to drive down costs to actually do so.”I agree with that brosef. A lot of times they have these things called patents that are a government entitlement, that insulates them. “Most companies (i.e., the buyers of much of private insurance) infrequently change their providers (sure way to incite your employees) so the competition between insurance companies is not great. “Pretty sure the competition between insurance companies in most states, or rather, the lack thereof, is because of the regulation on who can even operate an insurance company in the state. Those regulations are super tight in many states. One state had only one provider by law for many decades.

  14. Good acts all excepting probably the last two. Especially I would say probably the last one. I’m just not sure how that would work. Perhaps he’s not trying to end drug patents, but rather end the monopoly that results, and instead insist on their being at least one competitor that is licensed.

    1. Perhaps he’s not trying to end drug patents, but rather end the monopoly that resultsIn practical terms, what’s the difference? What he’s proposing is that innovators are compensated with money for their useful (FDA approved) drug innovations and the public has immediate access to the drugs at competitive prices, instead of having to wait for the patents to expire. Of course, this might prevent a company from achieving a Sooper Dooper Windfall, which would be the worst thing ever for the drug company CEO dreaming of buying his own island. That makes me sad just thinking about it. ;)

      1. You could still patent the drug, then get to control who licenses the patent and is the other competitor. Even oligopolies are better for consumers than monopolies. Iirc from basic econ. And yes, I read your details about his proposal in total, that seems ok to me. I’ve long been a backer of such a plan. And look on the bright side, maybe prices on private islands will come down and more CEOs will be able to afford them.

      2. Malcolm, do the alleged innovator have to have a patent? Else, how does one tell whether the FDA applicant has a bone fide invention?

Comments are closed.