by Dennis Crouch
Part of President-Elect Trump’s focus is on short-term “economic nationalism” — what we call “America First” and against the “false song of globalism.” In a set of upcoming posts we’ll walk through what this could mean for the U.S. Patent System. I expect that the answers will depend upon whether we are looking primarily for short-term gains and the measures of economic prosperity (e.g., median household income vs. stock valuation).
Although the U.S. has long operated in an international environment, we have been inwardly focused for most of the past 200 years. During this time, the vast majority of U.S. patents were issued to U.S. entities. What this meant was that the Patent system caused a shift in wealth within the U.S. (from consumers/competitors to patentees) with the benefit of better technology and more technical disclosures – a fairly efficient system so long as not eaten-up by transaction costs. The change today is that most U.S. patents are issued to foreign entities or are foreign-originated. What this means for the calculus is that the shift-in-wealth is leaving U.S. borders rather than staying put.
Of course, the U.S. allows foreign entities to obtain U.S. patents because of the mutual obligations of the Paris Convention (1893) and TRIPS (1995) that require foreign states create significant patent systems and allow U.S. entities to obtain patents in those foreign states. The now disfavored TPP was designed to further strengthen the requirements on our trading partners for enforcing intellectual property rights. Important questions: What patriotic renegotiation of these agreements might further benefit the U.S.? Barring that, wow can the USPTO and Courts conform to the international obligations while better serving U.S. interests? Of course, all of this has the potential of pushing the U.S. much closer to a trade war.
In an email, Prof. Mark Lemley suggests that we should look for “a rise in the importance of the ITC as we focus on blocking imports.” The ITC’s primary goal is to protect U.S. industries against unfair international trade. Lemley writes: “One interesting question is whether Trump will move the ITC’s jurisdiction back to its roots by insisting on a real domestic industry requirement.” Additional ITC movement could push-back against U.S. patents that are owned by foreign nations or unduly subsidized by a foreign nation.
Today (Nov 22, 2016), the Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in Lexmark v. Immersion Prods. that focuses on both domestic and international patent exhaustion. Although the Federal Circuit’s rule that gives extra rights to holders of U.S. patents (no international exhaustion) appears at first glance to be an “America First” principle. However, In their 2016 article, Hemel & Ouellette explain that the opposite rule would be the one more likely to “lower prices of patented goods in the United States and raise prices abroad.” All of this fits somewhere within the old economic arguments over mercantilism. See Hemel & Ouellette, Trade and Tradeoffs: The Case of International Patent Exhaustion, 116 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 17 (2016); Glynn Lunny, Copyright’s Mercantilist Turn, 42 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 95 (2014); Guy Rub, Rebalancing Copyright Exhaustion, 64 Emory L. J. 741 (2015).
“…a fairly efficient system, so as not eaten up by transaction costs….” So, spend 10k + for an issued patent and get eaten by a 100k challenge by a competitor with lawyers in a re-exam? What’s the point?
We don’t even reward the inventor anymore, just the first to file.
“so as long as not” sorry
“Efficiency” is not to be pursued as an end unto itself.
There are plenty of things that should be pursued opposite of efficiency.
Efficient infringement being a major one.
Every household will lose a staggering £1,250 a year because of the Brexit vote, independent forecasters say – as they painted a devastating picture of falling living standards, including no increase in real wages for at least another decade.
The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) also warned that working families will be hit hardest by the unprecedented slump, with pensioners better protected.
Workers will suffer because of an expected 3.7 per cent fall in real earnings by the start of the next decade, compared with the pre-referendum forecast.
More software patents will save the UK! Hurry! Hurry!
Your attempted sleight of software patents is offensive in how out of touch you are with the foreign situation that you so gleefully present.
Maybe try just a little not to be an arse.
xenophobia — this chant has lost all its power.
I am a pretty old guy. Let’s look at immigration because it is similar in many ways to what is happening to patents. Basically, we have this toxic mix of Democrats who want all the immigrants they can get from Mexico so that they take away the south from the Republicans and business that want cheap almost slave labor. This is not a grown-up policy that takes into the problems of our country and the world.
The biggest problem the world has right now is population growth. The Mexicans are not going to control their population if they can just flow into the U.S. And–get the enormity of the problem. The U.S. population has tripled since 1940. And, 25 percent of that is from Mexico. We went from almost no one from Mexico in 1940 to over 50,000,000 million Mexicans.
In an ideal world, we should have open borders, so we get the academics backing this policy of open borders. But, reality comes in and what happens is we get uncontrolled population growth in Mexico and the U.S. Plus, the intellectual left that are not the Lemley type of pseudo-intellectual actually say this too. They say what the powers that be in the U.S. are doing is allowing the people not in power to have to compete with cheap labor while maintaining laws to prevent competition for their jobs.
So, this situation and all the dynamics are about the same in patent law. We need grown-up solutions and the real identification of the problems.
One start would be to ask ourselves with the information revolution how valuable is the patent system. I think that the Google patents illustrate that the patent system helped bring in the great revolution. That the U.S. has a software industry that is ten times bigger than any other country largely because of the patent system. Etc. There are many real things we should be questioning and fighting for to understand reality. But just like immigration it is hard to do with the constant noise from big corporations, pseudo-intellectuals, lobbyist, etc.
And seriously with immigration — yes there are some people that are one of the ist and it is horrendous that the alt right exists— but, the vast majority of people are not that ist and just want rational policies that provide a good long-term outcome. Our current policies are lead to disaster.
Patents are in a very similar position. No one, for example, seems to be able to explain why it is that the U.S. has the best software industry by a factor of 10 other than the patent system. And–we can tell just how warped the debate is by the Google patents. Some say that the Google patents were instrumental in preventing Microsoft from just copying Google. And, yet we get Director Lee ignoring the Google patents when discussing important patents.
“information revolution” – reminds me of innovation Kondratieff waves (which are also mirrored in patent history) – see the works of Kondratieff and Schumpeter.
Of course, the usual suspects wont go anywhere near such innovation basics….
Dennis: Do we really need to infect even our patent policy with Trumpist xenophobia? We don’t win anymore at patents! Build the firewall! And make the Japanese pay for it! Is that what you are saying?
Might have been better if, before expressing a xenophobic hysteria, you balanced the post with comparable data about EP patents granted to non-EU inventors, and JP patents granted to non-JP inventors, and CN patents issued to non-CN inventors. Shift in wealth in all directions is what you will likely find. The EPO reports that in the 2006-2105 time frame, the US obtained the largest block of EP patents, and the US and Japan filed about 42% of all EP patent applications, so a similar shift in wealth is flowing out of the EP and into the US and Japan.
“Shift in wealth in all directions is what you will likely find.”
Yes, but when you’re on top of the wealth pile where do you suppose most of it is flowing from and where to you suppose it is flowing to?
Think about how you get to the top of the wealth pile. It’s not with overwhelming outflow.
DC, a discussion of the merits of free trade vs. fair trade is not a discussion that concerns Xenophobia.
When cast in terms of economic nationalism, referencing trumpism, I think it does. It doesn’t even come up without a normalization of xenophobia and nationalist fervor. In the past, we have discussed large foreign patent filers with approval for their innovation and energy. Now they are foreigners stealing our wealth. Some, I assume, are good people.
The post could have been made without reference to trumpism or nationalism or “patriotic” renegotiation. I see no discussion of the merits.
I wish I had time today for more on the merits, like my quick trip to the EPO to discover that the two largest filers in the EPO are the US and Japan. Can we figure out what corresponding “shift-in-wealth” is there? What about Japan, China and India? Is any “shift-in-wealth” going on there, perhaps in our favor? If all the shifts-in-wealth are a wash, then nationalism is senseless from a self-centered standpoint. Maybe the entire system is promoting progress globally, benefiting all countries. If it is not a wash, and the US is on the short end of that situation, we may still be ahead of the game if the overall promotion of progress benefits us more than we lose in the shift-in-wealth.
All that can be discussed without mention of economic nationalism and other distasteful rhetoric.
See post 2 below.
Here is a start:
link to epo.org
link to jpo.go.jp
Interesting: Of the top ten filers in Europe, only 4 are European.
18% of Japanese patent are filed by non-JP applicants, mostly US applicants.
What does that mean in terms of shift-in-wealth? The rhetoricians and the economists likely have different answers.
Thanks DC.
DC, I see your point.
However even if Trump appealed to the basic Xenophobia of the undereducated voter, I think he did raise the same point as did Sanders and this is the reason places like Michigan voted for Sanders and then Trump over Clinton. Free trade deals cost jobs because manufacturing is allowed to move to low cost areas, etc.
It is also self evident that if capital is free to move, it will move to areas where it can increase profits. So, if one makes a free trade deal with the likes of Mexico, an area of low costs (labor, regulation and taxes), manufacturing will move there because the goods made can be sold in the US for greater profit.
Fair trade imposes duties to level the playing field. These policies were long the exclusive domain of the Democratic Party. Somehow, that party lost its way and joined with the Republican Party to promote globalism.
Someone was going to take up the populist banner again, and surprisingly, one was Trump, a former Democrat, who somehow won the Republican nomination while trashing all his traditionally-conservative opponents in humiliating fashion. None of them were even remotely concerned with opposing free trade, but were content only with pushing a conservative social agenda. They all lost, and decisively so.
I wish I had the citation for you, but months ago I encountered an economic study (not a campaign blurb) that showed that as a result of NAFTA the average American family was better off to the tune of about $10,000 per year. The focus on the few who lost jobs, and are thus not better off, makes everybody feel bad, when most are better off. Unless that study was published by a industry that uniquely benefited from NAFTA.
Well, DC, link to statista.com
Income is not total compensation. Total compensation is actually rising, but Healthcare costs are rising equal to our faster than total compensation.
link to ssa.gov
And note, this is per earner, not multiplied by workers/household, which is why these numbers are smaller.
This is true. Free trade makes the nation as a whole better off in the long run, and could make everyone, including the “losers” better off through transfers (Kaldor-Hicks efficiency), but the right seems to be opposed to transfers of any kind.
DC – We will have upcoming posts on the comparison of in-flow / out-flow of patents across national borders and what this means for US interests and whether those flows mean anything for U.S. interests.
Thanks!
Dennis, as a comparison, it might also be interesting to look at historical data and see if patents lead manufacturing or follows. When, in the 1800’s, the Japanese studied why England, Germany and the US were great manufacturing powers, they concluded that it was because of their patent systems. This would indicate, all other things being equal, that manufacturing follows a strong patent system.
But we also see manufacturing now fleeing to places like Mexico, and before that, to Singapore, Thailand and China. So we also see, I think, that labor costs, regulation costs and taxation can also be decisive in terms of where manufacturing is conducted.
But the R&D necessary to support new and improved products also requires a developed educational system. China, Germany, England, Japan, Korea and the US have this. I am not so sure about Mexico, Singapore and Thailand, other locations where manufacturing has fled.
It is also to be noted that any corporate executive planning for the future of his company takes into consideration all such factors in deciding where to locate R&D and manufacturing.
“ also to be noted that any corporate executive planning for the future of his company takes into consideration all such factors in deciding where to locate R&D and manufacturing.”
This only accentuates my position on those multinational corporations that lack a true “beholding” to any one sovereign. The problem is that the transnational has an over$ized “voice” – think Citizens United – without the constraint of being a true citizen (there should be a limit to the juristic person to avoid this flaw).
xenophobia — this chant has lost all its power.
I am a pretty old guy. Let’s look at immigration because it is similar in many ways to what is happening to patents. Basically, we have this toxic mix of Democrats who want all the immigrants they can get from Mexico so that they take away the south from the Republicans and business that want cheap almost slave labor. This is not a grown-up policy that takes into the problems of our country and the world.
The biggest problem the world has right now is population growth. The Mexicans are not going to control their population if they can just flow into the U.S. And–get the enormity of the problem. The U.S. population has tripled since 1940. And, 25 percent of that is from Mexico. We went from almost no one from Mexico in 1940 to over 50,000,000 million Mexicans.
In an ideal world, we should have open borders, so we get the academics backing this policy of open borders. But, reality comes in and what happens is we get uncontrolled population growth in Mexico and the U.S. Plus, the intellectual left that are not the Lemley type of pseudo-intellectual actually say this too. They say what the powers that be in the U.S. are doing is allowing the people not in power to have to compete with cheap labor while maintaining laws to prevent competition for their jobs.
So, this situation and all the dynamics are about the same in patent law.
Well, I seem to be the only icon without eyes. But, picking on Japan is timely. The patent craft in the United States which revered the true inventor required disclosure of the “best mode.” If you didn’t, your patent became unenforceable.
Japan had no such requirement (correct me if I am wrong), leading to one country gaming the “global” system.
“Made in America” or the U.S.A. has world significance. Being inundated with toxic junk shipped from abroad makes no sense. International corporations are run by people. These people need to find a national allegiance and make it better for its chosen nation. Take Apple, for example. It wants to do good, but somehow can’t. Perhaps the patent system needs to be re-examined.
“International corporations are run by people. These people need to find a national allegiance and make it better for its chosen nation”
Shhh – you are revealing one of the Transnationals
u
g
l
y
secrets – that while they have garnered a certain “juristic person” effect here in the States, they are really NOT beholding to ANY national allegiance whatsoever.
Citizens United, of course, exacerbates this problem dramatically.
There are way more non-Americans in this world than there are Americans, so it seems to me that it is fairly intuitive that there will be more U.S. patents issued to non-Americans than to Americans. There are also more non-Europeans than there are Europeans in the world, so I would expect that there will be more EP patent grants to non-Europeans than to Europeans. Mutatis mutandis I would expect the same to be true of JP patents, or really any patent in a market large enough to make it worthwhile for non-citizens to want to do business there. I would bet (although I do not know) that SG citizens and juristic persons own no more than ~0.5% of SG patents. That is just the way it goes when a given country represents a minority of the world population (as every country does).
If U.S. patents owned by ex-U.S. citizens mean that wealth flows out of the U.S., then do EP patents owned by non-EU citizens mean wealth flowing out of the EU? And do JP patents owned by non-JP citizens mean wealth flowing out of JP. And where is that wealth flowing when it flows out of the EU or JP? Surely some of it is flowing to the U.S.
Do we really feel that we are knowledgable enough to try to steer those flows? For my part, this seems like the sort of situation that cries out for a laissez faire approach.
Greg, the wealth of a country corresponds to the total of the goods/raw materials made and sold. A country like Russia is wealthy because of its raw materials. A country like China, without raw materials, is wealthy because of its manufacturing. Currently, United States has both raw materials and manufacturing, but the latter is declining because of free trade laws combined with high regulation, high taxes and high labor costs.
The number of patents filed by a country somewhat reflects its relative investment in manufacturing. There is little doubt in my mind that the significant increase in the Chinese patent filings reflects its growing manufacturing.
The number of patents filed by a country somewhat reflects its relative investment in manufacturing. There is little doubt in my mind that the significant increase in the Chinese patent filings reflects its growing manufacturing.
I disagree. I doubt that there is any meaningful correlation at all between CN manufacturing and CN patent filings.
[T]he wealth of a country corresponds to the total of the goods/raw materials made and sold.
And services. Goods and services. Monaco did not get wealthy by mining or manufacturing, or really anything to do with goods.
Ned has always had a difficult time with the statutory category that most aligns with services.
He flat out refuses to recognize what Congress did in the Act of 1952; specifically 35 USC 100(b).
N.B. – Chinese manufacturing output is falling year over year for the last several years, while Chinese patent filings are rising quickly. If there is a correlation there between patents and manufacturing, I am not seeing it.
Chinese filings over time:
link to wipo.int
Greg, from your link: “Industrial production in China rose 6.1 percent year-on-year in October of 2016, the same pace as in September…”
Really? That is strange. That is not what I see when I click the link. How about this one:
link to cdn.tradingeconomics.com
Does that look like an increase? I see a down-sloping trend.
Greg, I think you confuse growth and growth rates. The rate of growth, once astronomical, is slowing, but still strong by any measure.
Sure enough, I think you are correct. Now that you point it out, I think that chart shows rates, but I was taking it for levels. In that case, the factual predicates of my argument above are incorrect, so I withdraw the assertion. I was wrong and you are right.
The number of patents filed by a country somewhat reflects its relative investment in manufacturing.
Somewhat? More like “not really”.
United States has both raw materials and manufacturing, but the latter is declining because of free trade laws combined with high regulation, high taxes
High taxes? And yet the rich keep getting richer and they pay hardly any taxes. And the Republicans do everything they can to encourage that. Because … why? Remind everyone, Ned. You’re the expert. And you voted for the Republicans — the same party that destroyed the economy, started a war on false pretenses, and created a huge deficit — the worst thing ever (according to them) — the last time they were in control.
and high labor costs
You mean factory workers get paid well in the United States? So they can maybe barely afford a tiny house and send their kid to college? Wow. That’s awful. How did we ever let that happen? What a terrible idea.
MM, Saudi Arabia has a lot of money, but very little manufacturing. It produces very little in terms of patentable technology.
China and the US are the leading manufacturing countries in the world. Both produce large numbers of patents.
England began the industrial revolution. Did patents follow or lead its growth in manufacturing?
Germany broke out when it unified. Why? Patent? Or did manufacturing lead?
Whatever. There is a relationship between manufacturing and patents. Certainly patents follow manufacturing. But, the question we really have is whether patents can be used to enhance manufacturing, thus wealth, of a country.
I think so.
Regarding taxes, we are talking here about corporate taxes.
Ned: the question we really have is whether patents can be used to enhance manufacturing
Sure. Encourage the filing of patents on manufacturing processes and items of manufacture, and discourage patents on abstract ineligible cr@p like logic and information. And reward patentees who either practice their manufacturing claims here in the US, and patentees who license their manufacture/manufacturing claims to domestic manufacturers.
Or we can encourage scrivening and b0ttom-feeding by patent attorneys and wealthy gamblers. We can create a whole industry of patent speculators, where any lawyer who can come up with some “do it on a computer” junk can get in on the “innovation” action themselves! Oh wait — we already tried that and it was a massive catastrophic failure that will take years to clean up. But at least we get to listen you cry your crocodile tears the entire time. Boo hoo hoo. Enjoy stuffing your face with turkey tomorrow.
You do (of course) realize that software is not logic and information (yes, I know that your rants would sound even sillier if you applied the tiniest bit of inte11ectual honesty…).
MM, have a Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
I see we agree on how patents can be used to foster US manufacturing.
The “6-is-a-genius-because-he-aligns-with-me” malady shows up….
It’s as if Ned did not see all the “swagger” that Malcolm dumped his way since the election…
Donald Trump’s chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon accepted $376,000 in pay over four years for working 30 hours a week at a tiny tax-exempt charity in Tallahassee while also serving as the hands-on executive chairman of Breitbart News Network. …
During the same four-year period, the charity paid about $1.3 million in salaries to two other journalists who said they put in 40 hours a week there while also working for the politically conservative news outlet, according to publicly available documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Yay! Jobs!
But at least they’re not “aloof”. Nothing “elite” about any of this. Nope.
Elephant CRP is still CRP.
Does nothing to change the fact that Donkey CRP is still CRP.
Maybe it’s a “nuance” thingie…?
😉
I will happily concede that the increased incidence of patents to ex-U.S. entities could mean that that wealth is leaving the U.S. This is not an intuitively obvious conclusion, however.
Imagine that a Swiss drug-maker gets a U.S. patent on its chemotherapeutic. Now it will be economically rational for the Swiss drug-maker to undertake the extremely expensive business of obtaining FDA approval to market that chemotherapeutic in the U.S. As a result, U.S. cancer patients will have access to this drug, and therefore some people will live 2 (or 4, or 10, or 20) years longer than they otherwise would have. Some of those people will be productive workers, who will create wealth in the U.S.
Much of this wealth would not have been created without the Swiss drug-maker’s patent. In other words, while it is true that revenues will flow into the Swiss drug-maker’s coffers, it is possible that the revenue streams leaving the U.S. will be dwarfed (or not) by the wealth created by the otherwise-dead (or otherwise-incapacitated) U.S. cancer survivors.
I really have no way of knowing which scenario (patent granted vs. patent denied) is the more profitable for the U.S., and neither does anyone else (latter day mercantilists very much included). Better just to establish some fair rules for patentability (useful, novel, and nonobvious) and let the results come as they will.
Honestly, I would like to have thought that Bastiat settled all of this nonsense years ago. It is beyond our abilities to plan and direct anything as complicated as the U.S. economy with any more than the weakest measures of control. Trying to use patents in an “America first” scheme is as pointless as it is potentially counterproductive.
<iTrying to use patents in an “America first” scheme is as pointless as it is potentially counterproductive.
But did you see that already China and Europe have granted software patents where the US did not? Yup. I read it on the Intertubes.
This is one of the signs of the ending of civilization. First they come for our software patents, then they come for our freedom fries.
Greg, I listened last summer to a BBC roundtable discussion regarding the anti-elitist views of Trump and Sanders, basically saying that trying to bring US manufacturing back to United States was a foolhardy and that the world had moved on. They seem to be particularly aloof to the suffering of the American worker/engineer who lost his job and who would never get another job so good.
Of course, these commentators themselves were elitists and were comfortable they would never be thrown out of power and might actually have to look for job themselves.
I am not really sure what the word “elitist” even means, other than “someone with whom I disagree.” In any event, I have to agree with the BBC panel. People do not realize (1) how much manufacturing is still done in the U.S. (can you spot NAFTA in that data series?) or (2) how much manufacturing output is returning to the U.S. that had once been outsourced. Most of the reason that people do not realize (1) or (2) is that while manufacturing is coming back, manufacturing jobs are not coming back.
No matter how we structure our trade policy, most Americans are not going to go back to working in factories, just like no matter how we structure our ag policy, most Americans are not going to go back to working on farms. There are robots to make steel now, just as there are tractors to harvest crops. Just because steel worker jobs left after a trade deal was signed does not mean that tearing up the trade deal will bring back the steel workers’ jobs.
I agree with you that we are not giving sufficient thought to how to help people who lost out as a result of trade deals. Merely reversing the trade deals, however, will not actually help them. It is not a serious answer to a real problem, however emotionally satisfying it might be to rail against NAFTA.
“I am not really sure what the word “elitist” even means, other than “someone with whom I disagree.” ”
See 3 and 4.
link to dictionary.com
“Most of the reason that people do not realize (1) or (2) is that while manufacturing is coming back, manufacturing jobs are not coming back.”
Correct.
“No matter how we structure our trade policy, most Americans are not going to go back to working in factories, just like no matter how we structure our ag policy, most Americans are not going to go back to working on farms.”
Correct, but doesn’t really matter. There is no need for us to be playing on an entirely lopsided field.
“Merely reversing the trade deals, however, will not actually help them.”
Might, might not. But it will staunch the flow. And there is still a net offshoring going on vs reshoring.
“I agree with you that we are not giving sufficient thought to how to help people who lost out as a result of trade deals.”
There isn’t that much to think about, other than to stop the gov. “victimizing” still more people.
B-b-but more “victims” means more “muh victims” (read that as potential lemmings).
Definition #3 in that link defines “elitist” as “a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society.”
So if Mr. X really is smarter than Mr. Y, Mr. X is an elitist (Mr. X is, after all, a “person having… superior intellect”)?
And if Mr. K is not really more powerful than Mr. M, but Ms. O thinks that Mr. K is more powerful than Mr. M, then Mr. K is also an elitist (because Mr. K is a “person… thought to have… superior… power”)?
And if Ms. L professes herself to be more talented than Mr. B, then Ms. L is an elitist (because she is a “person… professing superior… talent”) and it does not matter whether she really is or is not more talented than he is?
Honestly, this is not a definition in any meaningful sense. Probably everyone is an “elitist” in this definition, because every X in this world has someone who thinks that X is smarter, wealthier, more talented, etc than some Y in this world.
This is an epithet without objective content. If Ned says “Mr. Obama is an elitist,” the claim is meaningless on this definition, because the assertion cannot possibly be falsified. As I said above, the only think one really learns from the assertion “X is an elitist” is that “X is someone with whom I disagree.”
Meanwhile, definition number 4 defines “elitist” using the word “elitist.” One loses ten IQ points every time one reads something that pathetic.
The idea that Bernie Sanders is “particularly aloof to the suffering of the American worker/engineer who lost his job and who would never get another job so good” is something that only a psych 0tic l i ar or a complete an ign 0ramus would say. Good grief, Ned, do you really think people are as st 00 pit as you?
Try to read what Ned actually wrote before you throw your “swagger” at him Malcolm.
To wit: “regarding the anti-elitist views of Trump and Sanders“
Going to be interesting to see what is going to happen. My guess is that not much will change. So, far we are seeing that Trump always walks back on what he promised to some reasonable position.
But, you know, all you HRC and Obama supporters should really educate yourselves. Read Obama’s OP-Ed piece in the NY Times on TPP. He talks as if “globalism” is something that is just good as no regulation for Wall Street was just good. He also doesn’t mention anything about the American workers, but only talks about the ability for large corporations to be able to control the countries like Viet Nam if TPP is passed.
“He talks as if “globalism” is something that is just good as no regulation for Wall Street was just good.”
Of course he does brosefus, he’s a “citizen of the world” not merely of the US (his nominal citizenship in the US is just a side-gig for him like the rest of the globalists).
What’s funny is that this is literally true. Once you get into the global elite it’s as if borders literally don’t matter to you anymore (and why should they? everyone is happy to have you), at least that’s what NPR was saying the other day.
When the globalists talk about “open borders” being the bestest thing evar, they’re entirely right, from a “global perspective”. A bunch of (usually poor) people in repressive countries with ridiculously backwards cultures will have their lives made infinitely better by being able to migrate to the West. Of course, from the perspective of the people in the West having to try to “integrate” these populations (meaning not assimilate, but “integrate” as a separate entity within their own overall entity) and pay for it, and bear the brunt of the “culture clash” inspired crimes etc. their lives are made infinitely worse. What it is, essentially, is a government sponsored and enforced mandatory charity. But, since the leader was a “globalist” who has a “global perspective” then it’s all good (because humanity “overall” is bettered), even though his sworn duty is to the people of the nation (the ones with their lives made worse).
And if you point any of these purely factual things out then you’re TOTS A RAYCYST (amirite MM?), IST, ISM, PHOBIA blah blah blah.
Night, history is going to view, and I think properly so, Obama as an aloof, uncaring, elitist.
history is going to view, and I think properly so, Obama as an aloof, uncaring, elitist.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Reminds me of my favorite quote ever by the great (LOL) John Hinderaker (whatever happened to him? is he going to be in Trump’s cabinet?):
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile. – July 28 2005
MM, may I assume that you only laugh at the “and properly so” part?
No, I’m laughing at the entire concept.
But, hey, if the Republicans write the history books they can just put in a whole chapter on the “inferior black race” and all their failures. Right after the part where Jesus healed the dinosaur.
Good questions, but real numbers are complicated. Are “foreign origin” U.S. patents limited to those issuing from U.S. applications based on a foreign applications? Or the indicated current residence of the inventors? Or a perceived residence of the corporate assignees? What about the patent applications for inventions made in the foreign R&D facilities of U.S. companies, or made in the U.S. R&D facilities of foreign companies? Or patents assigned to U.S. companies by U.S. inventors where those U.S. companies are now owned by a foreign company? Etc.
However, there is no dispute that U.S. R&D as a percent of the growing total world-wide R&D is declining, along with other industrial and technical education comparisons, relative market shares, etc. The anti-intellectual, sports obsessed, and low educational pressure attitudes of many American parents as compared to many parents in rapid technology growth countries like South Korea and China is not helping either.
Another reported factor affecting this patent application filing ratio is the extent of U.S. major corporation R&D cutbacks. While needed for long term survival with new or improved products, many U.S. corporations are under pressure for short term profit increases from hedge funds and other speculative-stock-purchasing investors who are strongly influencing attacked corporations decisions to cut R&D costs. What were once several major corporate R&D departments have reportedly already been seriously decimated. In contrast to foreign government supported and/or privately owned companies which are not under such speculative short term stock manipulation pressures with huge very-low-taxed capital gains opportunities.
I propose a 65% capital gains tax on assets that are help for less that 10 years and 20% for assets held for at least 10 years. That’ll shore up long term thinking. The people below seem to have no problem with the government steering such policy and heavy-handed regulation of how corporations do business.
I don’t think limiting the alienability of property (assets) is in accord with fundamental principles of either our nation or our patent system.
You can still alienate your property. We use the tax code all the time to try to nudge what people do with their property. We are just going to use the tax code to incentivize long-term investing that sees the benefit of R&D.
All that you are doing is making it a game of Kings (and more difficult for those with less money, i.e., start-ups). As I mentioned, this is just not in sync with the foundation of the US patent system.