Michel & Nothhaft: Inventing Our Way Out of Joblessness

Judge Paul Michel and Hank Nothhaft (Tessera CEO) have written an important OP-ED for the New York Times. They argue that an important way for the US government to stimulate entrepreneurship and job growth is by giving the USPTO a large bolus of money ($1 billion) to put its affairs in order:

This would enable the agency to upgrade its outmoded computer systems and hire and train additional examiners to deal with the threefold increase in patent applications over the past 20 years. Congress should also pass pending legislation that would prohibit any more diverting of patent fees and give the office the authority to set its own fees.

. . . .

To be sure, not every patent creates a job or generates economic value. Some, however, are worth thousands of jobs — Jack Kilby’s 1959 patent for a semiconductor, for example, or Steve Wozniak’s 1979 patent for a personal computer. It’s impossible to predict how many new jobs or even new industries may lie buried within the patent office’s backlog. But according to our analysis of the data in the Berkeley Patent Survey, each issued patent is associated with 3 to 10 new jobs.

In addition, the pair suggests an “innovation tax credit” for each patent received by a small business:

To encourage still more entrepreneurship, Congress should also offer small businesses a tax credit of up to $19,000 for every patent they receive, enabling them to recoup half of the average $38,000 in patent office and lawyers’ fees spent to obtain a patent. Cost, after all, is the No. 1 deterrent to patent-seeking, the patent survey found.

For the average 30,000 patents issued to small businesses each year, a $19,000 innovation tax credit would mean a loss of about $570 million in tax revenue in a year. But if it led to the issuance of even one additional patent per small business, it would create 90,000 to 300,000 jobs.

Taken together, fully financing the patent office and creating an innovation tax credit could mean as many as 2.5 million new jobs over three years, and add up to 600,000 more jobs every year thereafter.

It only makes sense to help innovative small businesses make their way to the patent office and, once there, find it ready to issue the patents that lead to new jobs.

I have quibbles with the numbers used by the authors. However, I do think that they are on the right track in a few respects — especially with the idea that investing in incentives to innovate is a much more cost-effective and stable policy approach as compared with hiring folks to do government work.

Notes:

  • As academic quibbles: 
    • The statement that “each issued patent is associated with 3 to 10 new jobs” cannot be derived from the Berkeley Patent Survey.  However, I don’t see that figure as unreasonable or unlikely. It would be helpful to see how the authors calculated this figure.
    • In addition, it is important to recognize that patents are just one step along the road toward job creation. The idea is that patents can provide confidence and stability in business potential ventures.  That confidence and stability leads to investment and job creation.

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

164 thoughts on “Michel & Nothhaft: Inventing Our Way Out of Joblessness

  1. whose job it would be to give patents to inventors.

    Ya see – that’s what I be talking about. Such an obvious bait is just not what I have come to expect from my main main IANAE. We all know that the task at hand is not to simply reverse the flow of stupidity out of the office – ya don’t need to hire any more examiners to do that

    – the task at hand is for examiners to actually examine. Which in the first helpful step would be to take the time that is needed (some will be more, some will be less). In other words, time for the widget-factory thought train to leave the station.

  2. AI: I didn’t say, “We don’t need more examiners in the PTO”. I said, “Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?”

    IANAE: So you’re okay with the PTO hiring lots of new examiners, as long as they’re not like 6?

    If the PTO really needed more examiners I would have no problem with it as long as they are not 6.

    But to be honest, I have never dealt with nor have I known anyone that has dealt with an examiner that was anyway close to being like the online persona of 6.

    It has been my experience that most examiners are intelligent, hardworking professionals that enjoy helping Actual Inventors and want them to get their patents and be successful.

    IANAE: Far more important, you said, to give patents to inventors than for the only organization that issues US patents to hire more people whose job it would be to give patents to inventors.

    AI: What???? Okay this is why I advised you to be quiet and just go away after losing debates with Actual Inventors.

  3. AI: I didn’t say, “We don’t need more examiners in the PTO”. I said, “Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?”

    So you’re okay with the PTO hiring lots of new examiners, as long as they’re not like 6?

    Because that wasn’t at all the impression I got when you said this: “But giving more money to a large government bureaucracy is not the way to help inventors.” It sounded more like you thought it wouldn’t help inventors to earmark more money for hiring examiners of any type.

    Far more important, you said, to give patents to inventors than for the only organization that issues US patents to hire more people whose job it would be to give patents to inventors.

  4. “AI – I LOL ya – so like you to declare victory by asking for somethin and not waiting five minutes for an answer.

    As for that answer, since Homey don’t do answers, I will offer the following observation:”

    Better to remain silent than to open your mouth and remain a foool.

  5. ::Silence::

    AI – I LOL ya – so like you to declare victory by asking for somethin and not waiting five minutes for an answer.

    As for that answer, since Homey don’t do answers, I will offer the following observation: The statement of not every invention is patentable is attributable to the Supreme Court.

    Course, this not be an answer, but ya might look at what Benson invented but was not allowed to patent.

    Should I make some more observations? Will you gloat in more glory if ya don’t give me another five minutes to show how wrong ya be?

  6. Ping: “The first and most glaring point is that not every invention is patentable.”

    Yes, every invention IS patentable. I challenge you right now to name one invention that is not.

    :: Silence::

  7. Posted by: 6 | Aug 18, 2010 at 03:34 PM: ” I loled.”

    Which is exactly what we get we hire more examiner 6 types in the office.

  8. AI: Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?

    NO!!! We should give grants to Actual Inventors that wish to build a business around their patents.

    IANAE: “That’s right. We don’t need more examiners in the PTO. We need more people granting patents to applicants!”

    Who are you agreeing with? I didn’t say, “We don’t need more examiners in the PTO”. I said, “Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?”

    So who do you think you are fooling exactly? In fact the only ones that would be fooled by or play along with such Jr High school argument tactics is 6, and our Dear Ping Troll.

  9. “After all, every new patent earned by someone who starts his own businesses but hasn’t started one yet because he was waiting for his patent to issue first results in the creation of at least one new job. Whether or not he ever sells a single product.

    Hiring a new examiner to examine patent applications, though… who among us can say for sure whether or not that will create a job?

    I loled.

  10. “Relevancy” is such a slippery standard.

    To wit: “Well IANAE thinks something is not an invention if you can’t drop it on your foot.‘ compared with “If you can drop it on your foot, it’s patentable.

    The first and most glaring point is that not every invention is patentable. So AI’s equating the subject of the two sentences is a relevant mistake in any debate.

    After that we can quibble about such things as patentable and patent-eligible – since clearly there are many things that one can drop on one’s foot that are not patentable for obvious or novelty or both types of reasons.

  11. Posted by: ping | Aug 18, 2010 at 12:22 PM “AI doesn’t care that he fails at basic logic.”

    No one cares, Dear Ping that you are a basic troll.

  12. But are you an anti patent, pro socialist, communist sympathizing, alias for Malcolm Mooney that has been smacked down in every single debate relevant to Actual Inventors ?

    Let’s see…

    No, no, no, no, and… no.

  13. IANAE ” What I didn’t say was the inverse of that statement ”

    No one claimed you did. But are you an anti patent, pro socialist, communist sympathizing, alias for Malcolm Mooney that has been smacked down in every single debate relevant to Actual Inventors ?

    Of course!

  14. AI: On| Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM IANAE Posted his modern stone age patent guidelines: ” If you can drop it on your foot, it’s patentable.”

    Yes, that I said. What I didn’t say was the inverse of that statement – what you attributed to me at 3:46 AM today.

    Once again, you fail at basic logic. Look it up.

  15. “Version 12 appeared to be IANAE proof ”

    Isn’t that like racoon proof? Sorry, but no such thing really exist.

  16. Posted by: Ned Heller | Aug 17, 2010 at 03:21 PM: “I know a programmer who recently left a major software developer because he hadn’t had a raise in quite a long time and further because all the new programmers were from India, and their visas were tied to employment with that particular company so that their wages were effectively frozen because they had no ability to leave for better job elsewhere.”

    If that programmer was an Actual Inventor, he/she could earn patents on his/her new, novel, and non obvious programs and create a new job for him/her self and other programmers!

    I don’t believe there is anyone anymore that can argue with a straight face, and a modicum of credibility that patents don’t create jobs and thus improve the economy.

  17. Ping : “AI,

    I said Version 12 appeared to be IANAE proof – I did not say that your ramblings are IANAE proof.”

    Ahhh But Dear Ping:

    You have mistaken me for someone that cared.

  18. On| Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM IANAE Posted his modern stone age patent guidelines: ” If you can drop it on your foot, it’s patentable.”

  19. Well IANAE thinks something is not an invention if you can’t drop it on your foot.

    No I don’t, and I’ve been very clear on that in other threads.

    I do, however, think something is not an Actual Inventor if you can’t drop it on its head.

  20. AI,

    I said Version 12 appeared to be IANAE proof – I did not say that your ramblings are IANAE proof. I think that he be inoculated to their frothy nature and of course, you have regenerated the classic debate:

    Betty or Wilma

    and of course the less classic debate (we can’t leave our friends Malcolm and RWA out in the cold) – Fred or Barney.

  21. “AI, Version 12 appears to be IANAE proof, cepts does this mean that only new entrepreneurs should be lining up for patents? ”

    Well IANAE thinks something is not an invention if you can’t drop it on your foot. Apparently he is living in the town of Bedrock with a modern stone age family. But what Fred IANAE Flintstone can’t comprehend is that even old entrepreneurs can become CEO of more than one corporation and have more than one job. I have started two new corporations for my latest issued patents and become CEO of each and those patents are creating licensing revenue streams. So old entrepreneurs like myself should be eligible for those grants for filing patent applications as well. Even a Patent Pending can be licensed and generate revenue and thus create a new job. I know, I have done that too!

  22. Posted by: ping | Aug 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM “Sigh. Let’s just let the government hire every single unemployed person.”

    Works for North Korea.

  23. IANAE, I can’t say I totally disagree with you on this point. I know a programmer who recently left a major software developer because he hadn’t had a raise in quite a long time and further because all the new programmers were from India, and their visas were tied to employment with that particular company so that their wages were effectively frozen because they had no ability to leave for better job elsewhere.

  24. When the economy is up, workers make it big time.

    Not without unions. There is always, always someone without a job who will happily take your job for less money in his pocket rather than more money in yours. Even when the economy is good, and even when the media tell you there’s full employment.

    That may not have been the case in decades past, when even factory jobs were skilled and supply of appropriately-skilled and experienced workers was low, but now there are very few jobs that couldn’t be done by pretty much anybody with minimal training. Incidentally, that’s exactly the reason real disposable income has been declining for middle-class Americans even when the economy was good, and it’s also why so many people get no insurance or benefits from their employers. Even in good times, you still have to eat, and your boss considers you fungible.

  25. When the union takes over a business, who represents the workers?

    “Workers at a General Motors stamping plant in Indianapolis, Indiana chased United Auto Workers executives out of a union meeting Sunday, after the UAW demanded workers accept a contract that would cut their wages in half.
    As soon as three UAW International representatives took the podium, they were met with boos and shouts of opposition from many of the 631 workers currently employed at the plant. The officials, attempting to speak at the only informational meeting on the proposed contract changes, were forced out within minutes of taking the floor.”

    link to wsws.org

  26. Ping, well, it appears we need to fix that.

    It would be interesting if an examiner were to insist that he not be part of the union. What would happen.

  27. Ned,

    Let’s just say that the worker, right now, right here, does not have the individual choice that you allude to.

  28. Ditto if they are not free to NOT associate.

    LOL – Ned, have ya ever tried to work as a non-union person in a place that has a union?

    Which ends pretty badly for them, in the absence of a minimum wage or union backing.

    Um, IANAE, even that does not prevent the bad end.

  29. businesses compete for … workers through good wages and working conditions.

    Sure, while the economy is prospering.

    When the economy goes sour, workers start competing for businesses in the same way businesses compete for customers – through price and quality. Except that jobs from manufacturing complex machinery to assembling hamburgers to slaughtering cattle are being transformed from skilled to unskilled wherever possible, so workers find themselves competing only on price. Which ends pretty badly for them, in the absence of a minimum wage or union backing.

    And by “sour” I mean any economy where there’s even one unemployed person who could do your unskilled job, and would rather undercut you on wages than watch his family go hungry.

    When they say freedom comes at a price, they’re not kidding.

  30. Ah, unless people are free to associate for any purpose, they are not truly free. Ditto if they are not free to NOT associate.

    Associations come in many forms: unions to equalize bargaining power, parties to elect people of your own political views, etc.

    The only way for a worker to be free to choose, to prosper and to live a good life is in a free state where he is free to work where he chooses, to join or to not join a union, and where he has political freedom to join a free political party.

    Coincidentally, free economies also prosper because money goes to the business that are most profitable and businesses compete for both customers through price and quality, and for workers through good wages and working conditions.

    The only way to go is to enhance economic and political freedom.

  31. @ Ned’s “One needs political and economic freedom to have free unions where the unions actually represent the workers.”

    Unions are just another form of government.

  32. AI: Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?

    NO!!! We should give grants to Actual Inventors that wish to build a business around their patents.

    That’s right. We don’t need more examiners in the PTO. We need more people granting patents to applicants!

    After all, every new patent earned by someone who starts his own businesses but hasn’t started one yet because he was waiting for his patent to issue first results in the creation of at least one new job. Whether or not he ever sells a single product.

    Hiring a new examiner to examine patent applications, though… who among us can say for sure whether or not that will create a job?

  33. Ah,

    I could see what you be saying:

    seek collective “freedom from” ” typically looks outside the individual and empowers the larger collective

    more concerned… “freedom to” typically looks to make the individual more self sufficient (and less needy on the government) and wants the government to get outa the way

    The problem with the first is that looking outside the individual tends to lesson the individual and the concentration of power attracts more power outside the individual.

    The problem with the second is that all individuals just are not equal in their abilities and their ambitions (and self-moral guidelines). People can be mean, nasty, ruthless and uncaring. Robber Barrons do exist and any power system left unchecked will let disparities grow unbounded.

    We knew that we had to monitor our enemies. We’ve also come to realize that we need to monitor the people who are monitoring them…

    Well who’s gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors?

  34. Hagbard, thanks for the valuable tale of your personal experience. Not many folks do much prosecuting at the UK national Patent Office these days. That’s because the Applicant community has largely gone away, voting with its feet.

    So, where are all those Applicants? Paying those much commented upon EPO fees, and those much commented upon professional fees, while sitting out the wait till the EPO issues them with a patent (unless that is, they have asked for expedited prosecution on the PACE programme).

  35. AI,

    Version 12 appears to be IANAE proof, cepts does this mean that only new entrepreneurs should be lining up for patents? Iza think you be insulting the serial inventors out there who are also actual inventors.

    As to your question about more examiner 6’s, I’ll take that as rhetorical. Iza wouldn’t mind seeing more examiners, but ya better fix the system first – weza already been through the hire-more-and-pump-them-through-the-bad-system way of doing things. All that did was put the examiner turnover rate at about triple the application turnover rate.

  36. Ah, “freedom”, a thorny issue to be sure. “Freedom from”, “freedom to”… it gets quite complicated quite quickly. Might it be valid to say, broadly, that “liberals” seek collective “freedom from” bad stuff and “conservatives” are more concerned with individual “freedom to” pursue one’s own interests?

  37. FWIW:

    In the UK, the 54 month acceptance deadline gets extended if there is delay by the patent office – you get at least 12 months from the 1st sbstantive office action to get your app, and any divisionals, in order. I don’t do much domestic UK prosecution, so I don’t know how commonly the cap gets busted that way, but I’ve seen a few.

  38. Yes we can and need to invent our way out of joblessness. But giving more money to a large government bureaucracy is not the way to help inventors. Do we really need more examiner 6 types in the Office?

    NO!!! We should give grants to Actual Inventors that wish to build a business around their patents.

    As it has been proven on this blog time and time again, every new patent earned by a new entrepreneur results in the creation of at least one new job

  39. Maxie – like my idol done told you – here in the States there be more than one reason why we be the Gold Standard. Part O that be the legal standing that we get a patent unless the Office can show otherwise. Now if we go ahead and apply that time limit, and instead of just handin out PTA like it going outa style, the Office had to hand out patents,…

    There’s a thought.

    TINLA – a bittersweet post – sweet cause it be funny – bitter, cause my idol likely think that’dbe a good socialist thing to do having the government jus keep growin.

  40. Oh, I’m sure a 54-month cap is pretty meaningful to all concerned. But I have a feeling its greatest meaning to the PTO examiner is how much of his docket will evaporate at that time, regardless of how hard he works or which applications he chooses to work on.

    Basically, my point is that getting the current population of PTO examiners to look at the current backlog of applications at a high enough rate to meet any meaningful deadline is wildly impractical.

  41. Of the UK PTO “cap” on the time an application may remain pending, IANAE wrote:

    “…the cap could creep upward over time, but then it’s not really a meaningful cap”

    The cap might have crept up from 30 months in the 1970’s to 54 months now, but I can assure IANAE that a measly period of just 54 months starting with the earliest declared priority date, to get parent and all divisionals through to a Notice of Allowance, is nothing other than extremely “meaningful” to Applicant, its prosecuting attorney, and (just as much) to the PTO Examiner charged with examining them all (and facing the prospect of an appeal to the court after the end of the 54 month period).

  42. TINLA, you jumped in at the very conclusion of the discussion. But, generally, yes. The more freedom, the more worker freedom. For one thing, we pointed out that in single-party states, free unions were an anathema. Commies had unions, but as means to control workers. The Nazis simply banned them.

    One needs political and economic freedom to have free unions where the unions actually represent the workers.

  43. ping: “youse gonna need a bigger government to decrease those freedoms”

    New Title: Bigger Governmenting Our Way out of Joblessness

  44. And Maxie,

    Your “boredom” wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that this is both a US topic and somethin that would make the US Gold Standard even better, now wouldn’t it?

    (That’s a rhetorical question)

  45. Mr. Ned: “Our remedy to enhance worker freedom would be to enhance the freedom generally.”

    ???

    “…the freedom?”

    Which freedom?

    /throws pokeball

    Freedom from unfair exploitation, I choose you!

    Meows: “Increasing the freedom of people from being unfairly exploited by other people requires decreasing the freedom of people to unfairly exploit other people.”

  46. Max: Why, by refusing any application still pending after 30 months. End of story.

    I figured it would have to be something like that.

    I can definitely see that type of measure being very unpopular in the US, not least of which because Americans “know their rights” and wouldn’t tolerate a non-reviewable summary refusal when their application was otherwise validly pending. After all, applicants are entitled to a patent unless…

    But mostly the reason I ask is because the US has this huge backlog you may have heard about. The applicant has no control over how long it will take before he receives a first action, nor on the turn-around time for subsequent actions. Sure, he could try responding to rejections before the 3-month date, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the PTO side of the equation. Applicants would get pretty upset if their applications started dying on schedule simply because the PTO was understaffed in an art unit, something that can’t really be directly fixed by statute even if a hard cap were implemented.

    I guess the cap could creep upward over time, but then it’s not really a meaningful cap.

  47. IANAE you ask how the 30 month cap was enforced. Why, by refusing any application still pending after 30 months. End of story. BTW, the cap is still present, in domestic UK patent law. The period has crept up from 30 to 54 months (but that’s understandable because of the even earlier A publication, 18 months after the priority date).

    I didn’t know about the cap on pendency in the US statute. The UK cap really is a cap though. If you haven’t got your app in order for issue (or bought all the extension you can get from the PTO) before the 54 month guillotine falls, you’ve got nothing, zilch.

    On the power of a WO to intimidate, I grant you that it might depend which industry you are in, and whether you bother to do patent clearance studies. But when we do clearance studies in Europe, those A publications can be problematic for serious investors in new technology.

    ping, on quid pro quo we’re done. I’m bored and I detect that you are too.

  48. From where do you get your perception that the US way is the only way, that it has to be the US way and simply can’t be any other way

    Why, Maxie, from my charmingly typical US-is-best (and in this case, that happens to be true) provincial attitude.

    As to the imaginary quid that you propose – it is just that – imaginary.

    IANAE,
    that’s an interesting viewpoint, but I’m not sure that you have escaped your taint of socialism just yet (I’m still wiping away my tears). Ya seem to miss the bigger picture that the publication rights disappear, cause the quid not be stolen anymore and there be no publication of merit to attach rights to. I would lay quite a larger wager that (contrary to Maxie’s view – and apperantly yours), that most applicants would gladly sacrifice the “provisional rights” as they are now to reclaim their true quo rights.

  49. Max: Everybody knew that the patentee would lose if the asserted claim were found to embrace obvious matter.

    That system isn’t working so well in America, because it’s all too common for the fight to be more important than the win. If you can inconvenience a company enough in either cost or duration of legal uncertainty, especially a public company with ongoing business operations, that company will be highly motivated to settle almost regardless of the merits of the case. The merits might affect the cost of settlement, but that’s about it.

    Max: But the British system had no long gap between filing and that Notice of Allowance, because its Statute included a 30 month cap on the period between the priority date and that Notice of Allowance,

    I’m impressed. How does one enforce that, exactly? The US statute has a similar promise, but many applicants seem happy to see the promise broken and take the damages in lieu.

    Max: Those A publications intimidate, and are the basis of claims for compensation for infringement that reach back to the date of A publication.

    I was going to say that those A publications aren’t nearly as intimidating as you might think, but then I remembered that H.R. 5980 (you know, the one with the fancy title about bringing jobs back to America) proposes to essentially repeal the A publication and the associated provisional rights. So clearly they intimidate someone with some political influence.

    Of course, they wouldn’t intimidate anyone very much if the PTO could get patents promptly examined and the good ones issued. The bad ones wouldn’t issue with substantially similar claims to the publication anyway, so no worries if they inevitably take a bit longer.

  50. ping, hang on a minute. What makes you think that the ROW confines its A publication rights to claims that go through to issue as filed? From where do you get your perception that the US way is the only way, that it has to be the US way and simply can’t be any other way. We are debating quid pro quo as such, I had thought, not just with the constraint that the US way is the only conceivable way.

    Just suppose that an Applicant can claim compensation for infringement of duly issued claims that were not present in the A publication, such compensation going back to the date of the A publication, and based on claims whose validity is tested on a date 18 months prior to A publication. Just imagine the power (the quid) that Government gives an Applicant, when it A-publishes her (quo) patent application.

    Your go now.

  51. Maxie,

    Not looking to slam some one that just gave me praise – oh what the heck – sure I am:

    I think most Applicants prefer the 18 month publication. Those A publications intimidate, and are the basis of claims for compensation for infringement that reach back to the date of A publication.

    Are you involved at all in the prosecution of patents? Do you have a clue how small the chance is of escaping the Office with a claim set as published in your vaunted A publication? You seem to grasp the essense of the loss of Quo, then blunder out with a statement that applicants prefer this loss – are you completely daft?

    ‘sides which, you naturally start talking about non-gold standard, non-US stuff (b o r i n g), and don’t even offer a comment on the good Wolf and company’s revitalizing efforts.

  52. The way ping at 7.48 puts the quid/pro thing is the best I have ever seen it expressed. Before the UK went European, its law published only after issue of a Notice of Allowance, and obviousness was not touched, in ex parte pre-issue examination on the merits. But there was no presumption of validity (how could there be, with obviousness not yet explored). Patentees were free to assert, and prove infringement, but accused infringers were free to attack validity. Everybody knew that the patentee would lose if the asserted claim were found to embrace obvious matter.

    But the British system had no long gap between filing and that Notice of Allowance, because its Statute included a 30 month cap on the period between the priority date and that Notice of Allowance, not just for the instant appln but for any and all divisionals hanging from it. No submarine stuff in the UK prior to 1978.

    After 1978, in a faster-moving world, publication 18 months from the priority date was the only feasible way to avoid submarine stuff, if ever more complex applns could simply not be brought to allowance in 30 months from the prio date.

    I think most Applicants prefer the 18 month publication. Those A publications intimidate, and are the basis of claims for compensation for infringement that reach back to the date of A publication. Besides, Applicant can keep something pending until the end of the 20 year term. Pretty nice for PTO users, I would say. Maybe that explains why there are ever more applns being filed.

  53. INANE: “Okay, so every patent that creates a new job creates a new job.

    WTH???

    How does that proposition demonstrate in any way that patents are good for the economy?

    Huh???

    I suggest that you simply go away quietly once you get your but kicked by AI’s rather than descend into illogical babel.

  54. Mikey,

    I would take exception to your statement that “quo” disappeared – your examples merely lessen the effective quid without touching the quo. When publication came about, the quo was truly taken, cause that very publication is all that the applicant can offer. Once published prior to patent grant, all leverage from the side of the applicant is gone. Up to that point, if the applicant didn’t like the way examination was going, or if examination simply was going poorly, and rejection was forthcoming – the applicant still had his qho, and could continue in trade secret.

  55. “Quo” disappeared long before publication entered the scene. “Self-funding” and “maintenance fees” removed the term from the lexicon of patent law.

    I wonder how many who may post here ever filed applications where the basic filing fee was just over $100?

  56. Another underlying thought that can be weaved into this discussion: Patent systems have historically been a device to advance the state of one country over that of others. There has always been an element of special consideration of “home”.

    How does this intrinsic element correlate with “jobs at home”? In this light the aim of unifying patent law worldwide (and thus diminishing the gold standard that sets the US patent as the envy of the world) can be seen as the anti-American effort it really is (unless, of course, you be like Kappos and expect ROW to change to our way of thinking).

    Is there any accident to the natural re-strengthening of the Quid-Pro-Quo in H.R. 5980?

    H.R. 5980 titled “Bring Jobs Back to America: Strategic Manufacturing & Job Repatriation Act” has an important patent element that mirrors one of my favorite topics – the true and valid treatment of the traditional Quid Pro Quo that was eviscerated with the open publishing (taking) of the Quo in full publication prior to the exchange of Quid. Oh how I do like how Mr. Wolf, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Whitman, Mrs. Miller and Mr. Lipinski think about this important tie-in.

  57. “Our remedy to enhance worker freedom would be to enhance the freedom generally.”

    Precisely – Workers of the world unite!

  58. Ah Pook, noted about exporting jobs to areas that do not have free unions. Note, and I stress here, the word “free.” You might have unions in unfree states, but they are mere fig leaves. What they actually do is operate as arms the of the government to suppress worker rights rather than to enhance them.

    Our remedy to enhance worker freedom would be to enhance the freedom generally.

  59. Well, there is plenty of off-shoring being done by German companies (and they all have representatives of the Unions on their Boards of Directors), but I do not see it as hurting the German economy, which seems to be exporting expensive products as fast and as hard as ever. Why aren’t all those alien buyers of German products busy buying Chinese, just like German consumers(and Union members) are busy today buying all sorts of stuff Made in China?

    By the way, what does the USA export, these days? As for the UK, it’s mainly military hardware and jet engines, I gather. Is there any correlation between what is patented and what the USA exports?

  60. Ah Pook raises an interesting point.

    And let’s not forget that unions can be as bad as anythign else (take a gander at an historical number of union members chart sometimes).

  61. Thanks Ned

    Labor unions are of course crucial in creating and maintaining workers rights’ in the face of corporate greed. That’s why unions exist. And lest we forget, many workers in both Europe and the USA suffered terribly in the pursuit of rights that their ancestors take for granted.

    Point being that in a world where jobs are freely offshored to places where workers do not enjoy such rights, the pressure increases on those that do have them to accept poorer conditions. Deregulation and globalization of markets only serves the interests of the elite, at the expense of the rest.

    Democracy is a nice idea, but wake up and smell the Realpolitik.

  62. AI: Okay, so perhaps I should have said New Entrepreneur rather just Entrepreneur to avoid this whole silly mess on your part. Well, now I fixed it (see below) and you can’t logically touch it.

    Okay, so every patent that creates a new job creates a new job. How does that proposition demonstrate in any way that patents are good for the economy?

    Bonus points for realizing that said entrepreneur is just as capable of “becoming the CEO of [his] own one man or woman corporation or a sole proprietor” even without a patent, and the vast majority do just that.

  63. Ah Pook, “I never actually mentioned socialism. By corporate servitude, I meant the situation where the corporation calls all the shots because the workers are terrified of the consequences of unemployment.”

    Ah Pook, as long as one has free enterprise where there are numbers of businesses competing with each other, businesses are neither free to sell products with without regard to price and quality, nor to hire and retain employees without fairness in employment conditions and wages.

    The situation you call “corporate servitude” can arise in situations where major businesses are monopolies, especially where to monopolies are supported by the state. Here the worker is not free to work where he chooses, but must accept the employment conditions offered — or else not work at all. Such corporate monopolies could arise under socialism which preaches state monopolies. I think the current Communist Chinese regime fits the bill to some degree. But monopolies tend to form also in protected environments where there is no free competition, and where the government owns, controls and/or heavily regulates the particular industries. You see this throughout Europe.

    The countervailing force, of course, to corporate power are free unions. We find free unions in the United States and Europe. However we do not find free unions where the government is controlled by a single party. I call your attention to any Communist government, and Nazi Germany.

  64. Inane wrote: “Your original statement was that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job. When confronted with the obvious falsity of that statement, you responded thusly by defining an entrepreneur as someone who creates a job. Thereby rendering your entire thesis tautological and pointless.”

    ___________

    So having quickly exhausted your junior high school repertoire of fallacious arguments of red herrings, non sequiturs, and attempts at obfuscation you now resort to semantic nitpicking and wiki referenced wordsmithing games!

    Okay, so perhaps I should have said New Entrepreneur rather just Entrepreneur to avoid this whole silly mess on your part. Well, now I fixed it (see below) and you can’t logically touch it. Besides, no matter which adjective you use, whether it’s new, true, or blue the noun “Entrepreneur” is still defined exactly as the American Heritage Dictionary defined it, and I stated up thread. And the following argument remains true and untouchable.

    “Whether you become the CEO of your own one man or woman corporation or a sole proprietor, that is a job. And the selling, or licensing of your patented invention is your income.”

    So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to a new “entrepreneur” creates at least one new job.

    and…. as usual you lose Inane and Actual Inventors win.

  65. I never actually mentioned socialism. By corporate servitude, I meant the situation where the corporation calls all the shots because the workers are terrified of the consequences of unemployment. This suits those in the upper levels of the pyramid, of course.

    People are entitled to have very different views about what constitutes human progress, but one is often forced to wonder what degree of wisdom informs such views.

  66. Socialism is clearly a form of fairness. It all depends on what you think “fair” really is.

    I think this was first said by a gentleman named P.T. Barnum.

    For someone so together in most every aspect, to see IANAE profess this unholy admiration for the crock of sheepdip named socialism makes me weep.

  67. AI: That was not my statement.

    So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job.

    And again here.

    AI: I never redefined it to begin with.

    Your original statement was that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job. When confronted with the obvious falsity of that statement, you responded thusly by defining an entrepreneur as someone who creates a job. Thereby rendering your entire thesis tautological and pointless.

    Not to mention that an entrepreneur is still an entrepreneur when a second new patent is granted to him, and by your own admission that process does not create a new job.

  68. AI: No because you can only be CEO of your own corporation once.

    INANE: Okay, then. Care to re-think your earlier statement that “every new patent … creates at least one new job”?

    AI: That was not my statement. Care to read my original post at | Aug 06, 2010 at 04:58 PM and try to comprehend it?

    INANE Or would you like to re-define “entrepreneur” again? I propose “person who, upon obtaining a patent, creates at least one new job”.

    AI: I never redefined it to begin with. You are look totally loopy with your Junior high school fallacious arguments and tactics. Pray tell what is your real job??

    I hope you are not a member of the Patent Bar.

  69. And you think socialism is fair? To whom?

    Socialism is clearly a form of fairness. It all depends on what you think “fair” really is.

    Some people would consider it unfair, and with some justification, to deny anybody the basic necessities of life – enough food and clean water to survive, basic medical care without waiting for the condition to become an emergency, a little shelter in the winter, that sort of thing. A purely capitalist society, which is clearly a different form of fairness, fails spectacularly in that regard.

    What’s more fair, fundamentally speaking? First-come-first-served, or one-to-a-customer? Equality of opportunity or equality of resource distribution? It all depends on whether you think you can increase your share of the pie under equality of opportunity.

  70. It’s good to see that the patent law lobby appears to be making a big push toward publicizing IP issues. The other night I saw David Kappos interviewed on a CBS news segment about the plight of the USPTO, its massive backlog, and the fee diversion problem. If this continues, public pressure and awareness may force Congress to finally start addressing patent law’s plight, and we may even start to turn things around for the USPTO and our economy.

  71. Ah Pook: “corporate servitude, with the alternative being abject poverty.”

    Huh?

    The alternative: everyone works or they do not eat. For their work, they receive pretty much the same as anyone else regardless of effort or skill.

    And you think socialism is fair? To whom? The slackers who game the system by pretending to work? The bosses, who like the aristocracy of old are more equal? To whom?

  72. “It remains to be seen whether the march is “ever upward” or a lemming-like over a cliff.”

    Hysteresis, first(?) cycle…

  73. the onward march of civilisation.

    It remains to be seen whether the march is “ever upward” or a lemming-like over a cliff.

  74. ping I don’t follow you. Gorillas are shy, aren’t they? Lions, grizzly bears. But murderously aggressive too. Isn’t the “fight or flight” inborn instinct just as much a part of “human nature” as it is of “animal nature”?

    I’m not going to rise to your provocation, trying to bring M/F into it. There is quite enough to discuss already, with how American adversarial legal procedures in patent law fit with “human nature”, “common sense” and the onward march of civilisation.

  75. AI: No because you can only be CEO of your own corporation once.

    Okay, then. Care to re-think your earlier statement that “every new patent … creates at least one new job”?

    Or would you like to re-define “entrepreneur” again? I propose “person who, upon obtaining a patent, creates at least one new job”.

  76. Ah, the fantasy of unlimited growth that will allow everyone to be as rich as Bill Gates. Uh-huh. Do the math.

    When I were a lad I was led to believe that by now we would all be living lives of self-fulfilment, with all the drudge work done by machines. Can’t say I ever fully believed it, but I certainly didn’t expect the reality to be so nearly the polar opposite of the prediction: the ability of machines to do more and more of what people used to have to do being leveraged to force more and more people into corporate servitude, with the alternative being abject poverty.

    The notion of general prosperity arising as a by-product of the unfettered pursuit of $$$$$ is a bubble that has indubitably burst, and it beggars belief that so many were so in thrall to it for so long, and that so many continue to be so.

    What next? None of the “great” and/or the “good” seem to have much of a clue.

    The dream of reason produces monsters, right enough

  77. I think the smartest thing about Maxie’s post is:

    They(?)

    After that first question mark, his post descends into blah blah blah*

    – and Maxie, dispatching all the males won’t cut it – ya think males hold grudges? Do you know any females, or have you ever crossed a female?

    – and Maxie – there be no trust in the “mingling with complete strangers” or getting out of the houses every morning. You place way too much emphasis on the “shy” and far too little on the murderous aggression. Alpha types, in fact, have very little of the “shy” and will actually employ the “shy” as a weapon if they become sophisticated enough.

    *stol-, um, borrowed without permission (of course)

  78. ping writes about “socialism”, that:

    “it won’t work for the same reasons communism will never work – Human Nature.”

    I was just wondering whether “human nature” is as universal as “common sense”.

    They(?) say that the human brain is born with an inherent capacity to handle language, and with an instinct for altruism that gives the group of human being that possesses that instinct a survival “edge” over rival groups that lack it. Of course, altruism is not enough. What you also need is a murderous aggression as well, swiftly to despatch all the males of any rival group you might meet, when wandering around the plains of Africa (or wherever).

    They(!) also say that ten thousand years is not enough to change our “human nature”, that we are still the same shy aggressive ape that we once were, before the arrival of agriculture. That being the case, it is remarkable that any one of us is trusting enough to leave the house and venture out to mingle with complete strangers. Should we be grateful that we do trust each other that much. If so, what have we to thank, for giving us that amount of trust, to over-ride our basic “human nature”? People in Europe venture out onto the streets too, you know, so I do not think it is exclusively the attributes of society in the USA that generates enough trust to get people out of their houses every morning.

    Anybody agree/disagree?

  79. Which brings me back to my unanswered question from some months ago: If the same “entrepreneur” gets five patents, does that mean he has five jobs?

    _____

    No because you can only be CEO of your own corporation once.

  80. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 10, 2010 at 09:14 PM: “Unlike capitalism which works so awesomely!!!”

    In your bizzaro world America has failed and the USSR is the world leader and everyone in Cuba drives a 2010 luxury car,

  81. AI: So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an “entrepreneur” creates at least one new job.

    INANE: I wonder if it’s equally “logical” that every one of these “new jobs” turns enough profit to recoup the patent prosecution expenses, let alone all the extra time and effort it takes to be an “entrepreneur”, and the inevitable distraction from inventing something else patentable.

    AI: Spoken like someone that has never invented anything or run a business in their life. First of all jobs don’t turn profits, businesses do. Second, in capitalism no one is guaranteed anything but the opportunity to compete. And that is your job to be the best you can be and succeed. Just because they might fail at their job is no reason to deny entrepreneurs the patents they need to create jobs for themselves and others. Of course I wouldn’t expect an anti patent public sector union hack like yourself to appreciate that.

  82. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 10, 2010 at 09:14 PM: “/millions of children who died because they couldn’t afford the care available to the children of rich CEOs”

    Millions? Ha! But one thing is for sure, if their parents had learned to become Actual Inventors and built businesses around patents they too could be the rich children of CEOs. Unfortunately there are people like you wanting to keep that from happening.

  83. Such a Malcolm – I never said capitalism worked for everybody.

    In fact, I never said that I espoused capitalism.

    So quick to jump to conclusions Sunshine.

  84. ping It is for a number of reasons, chief amongst them is that it won’t work for the same reasons communism will never work – Human Nature.

    “Unlike capitalism which works so awesomely!!!”

    /millions of children who died because they couldn’t afford the care available to the children of rich CEOs

  85. masses that socialism is a dangerous, evil thing to be feared

    It is for a number of reasons, chief amongst them is that it won’t work for the same reasons communism will never work – Human Nature.

    It also is for those who have anything to lose. In fact, the only appeal of such a system is two-fold – the ones who have nothing to lose and those in power pulling the strings to put the new system in place.

  86. Revolution.

    Unless we can get a few loud rich people to convince the masses that socialism is a dangerous, evil thing to be feared.

    Someone get on that, please.

  87. “LOL away, but if all this innovating doesn’t lead to a fully automated society where the robots do all the labor and maintain each other, and set people free to do do what they enjoy with their lives, then what’s the point? In my view, the goal is not full employment, but freedom from forced servitude.”

    Well Broje, the “point” as of right now is to make $$$. But you are right that such as you speak of will likely be a long term consequence if we continue to make progress. The thing is though, can we really say that is a goal? Idk about that.

    “And it’s not like we are going to wake up one day and find oursleves there overnight. People will become more and more obsolete over time, as innovations make it possible for one person to do the job that used to require many. Should we continue to let those “have nots” languish homeless, and without health insurance, until they outnumber the “haves?” What happens then?”

    Revolution.

  88. then what’s the point? In my view, the goal is not full employment, but freedom from forced servitude.

    Brings to mind the Saturday Night episode with William Shatner – “It’s just a TV show”.

    Grow up TINLA – the point is to make a buck on suckers like you. The real world is full of mean nasty people and there is a reason why Communism is doomed to failure – some people will walk all over you cause it be fun to be bad.

  89. AI: “I am not sure what age you are referring too, where no worker were needed”

    I refer you to star trek, next generation.

    LOL away, but if all this innovating doesn’t lead to a fully automated society where the robots do all the labor and maintain each other, and set people free to do do what they enjoy with their lives, then what’s the point? In my view, the goal is not full employment, but freedom from forced servitude.

    And it’s not like we are going to wake up one day and find oursleves there overnight. People will become more and more obsolete over time, as innovations make it possible for one person to do the job that used to require many. Should we continue to let those “have nots” languish homeless, and without health insurance, until they outnumber the “haves?” What happens then?

  90. AI: If the patent is not commercialized or licensed then its not being granted to a true entrepreneur

    Also, did you know that not a single patent is granted to a true Scotsman?

    AI: So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an “entrepreneur” creates at least one new job.

    I wonder if it’s equally “logical” that every one of these “new jobs” turns enough profit to recoup the patent prosecution expenses, let alone all the extra time and effort it takes to be an “entrepreneur”, and the inevitable distraction from inventing something else patentable.

    Which brings me back to my unanswered question from some months ago: If the same “entrepreneur” gets five patents, does that mean he has five jobs? What if those five inventions are all for the same product? What if nobody wants that product? I suppose if nobody wants the product he’s not really an entrepreneur. What a relief, logic triumphs once more.

  91. “actual inventors” are rarely “true entrepreneurs”

    The only way they can get paid is by using some other folks: either their corporate employers or contigency law firms (aka patent trolls) suing corporate infringers for damages

    Either way jobs and wealth are created if the patented invention is new, unobvious and useful for the industry

  92. Posted by: A plurality of thresholding units | Aug 09, 2010 at 09:33 AM: “Actually, this is not true. Patent examiners cannot apply for a patent. See 35 USC 4.”

    Yes they can. All they have to do is quit their PE job and start the new job of being an Actual Inventor. So you see, anyone CAN apply for a patent.

  93. Posted by: TINLA IANYL | “But, presuming it is the case that more patents and innovations actually leads to less jobs in the laong term as workers become unneeded, then we have to decide what our priorities are.

    AI: That can never be the case in a true “Inventor Nation”. Yes some Inventors will fail but they can then go work for the Inventors that succeed.

    TINLA IANYL: Do we go back to the dark ages and put everyone to work tilling the fields, or do we usher in an age of prosperity where workers are not needed because resources are plentiful?

    AI: I am not sure what age you are referring too, where no worker were needed. But the more successful Inventors become the more workers are needed to run the businesses they create and serve.

    TINLA IANYL: “And, if the latter, do we ensure the prosperity of those who do not work, and make working optional, or do we continue with a pure meritocracy, where only those who work are provided for?”

    AI: In a true meritocracy people are able to decide who they will provide for outside of their families and not be forced by the government to provide for people they do not know.

    And of course in a true meritocracy everyone would have the opportunity and means to become Actual Inventors and provide for themselves, knowing that if they fail they can always work for those that succeed.

  94. Posted by: Night Writer Patent Attorney | Aug 09, 2010 at 02:24 PM: “Just read some of MM’s posts. According to him everything is obvious.”

    And nothing is statutory.

  95. Posted by: AnotherJuniorExaminer | Aug 09, 2010 at 09:18 PM:” Not all patents are commerialized or licensed, meaning they result in zero new jobs.”

    If the patent is not commercialized or licensed then its not being granted to a true entrepreneur since, as the American Heritage dictionary says, “an Entrepreneur is a a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses.”

    And as I will gladly reiterate from my post at Aug 06, 2010 at 04:58 PM:

    “Whether you become the CEO of your own one man or woman corporation or a sole proprietor, that is a job. And the selling, or licensing of your patented invention is your income.”

    So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an “entrepreneur” creates at least one new job.

    :::Another Junior Examiner Schooled By an Actual Inventor::

  96. AI: “Why not? :: Another Junior Examiner Silenced::”

    Not all patents are commerialized or licensed, meaning they result in zero new jobs. It is in fact an undeniable fact that NOT every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job.

    Another naive “actual” inventor silenced.

  97. >>With Examiners having complete discretion to >>reject based on “common sense,” I predict more >>people opting for trade secret protection, not >>less.

    Just read some of MM’s posts. According to him everything is obvious.

    Get ye back to TSM you bums.

  98. AI: “So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job.”

    Posted by: AnotherJuniorExaminer | Aug 08, 2010 at 09:14 PM: “Sorry Actual Inventor, but that statement is neither logical, nor true.”

    _____________

    Why not?

    :: Another Junior Examiner Silenced::

  99. @fatalist

    Making it even more difficult to obtain patents will result in poeple opting for trade secret protection more often, not less.

    And one man’s “hindsight” is another man’s “common sense.” Fully opening the floodgates on so-called “common sense” could lead to no patents ever on anything. With Examiners having complete discretion to reject based on “common sense,” I predict more people opting for trade secret protection, not less.

  100. “I wonder whether the basic premise that more patents on innovations will result in more jobs is flawed. I mean, who is to say that granting a patent on a new product that out performs old products, while creating some jobs at the patentee’s company, will not result in large amounts of attrition at the competitors’ companies that are still trying to peddle the old, inferior products?”

    But broje, assuming those to be equal you left out the innovation tax collector position we created. Can’t leave that out!

  101. We do not need more patents
    We need BETTER patents.
    “Better patents” actually means LESS patents and more common sense within the PTO
    (Common sense seems in the highest deficit these days)

    To have the incentive to research and disclose groundbreaking inventions via patent route small inventors and businesses also need some cheap way of enforcing their valid patents against corporate gorillas
    Until this issue is addressed trade secrets will present more attractive alternative to patenting in many fields

  102. I wonder whether the basic premise that more patents on innovations will result in more jobs is flawed. I mean, who is to say that granting a patent on a new product that out performs old products, while creating some jobs at the patentee’s company, will not result in large amounts of attrition at the competitors’ companies that are still trying to peddle the old, inferior products?

    But, presuming it is the case that more patents and innovations actually leads to less jobs in the laong term as workers become unneeded, then we have to decide what our priorities are. Do we go back to the dark ages and put everyone to work tilling the fields, or do we usher in an age of prosperity where workers are not needed because resources are plentiful? And, if the latter, do we ensure the prosperity of those who do not work, and make working optional, or do we continue with a pure meritocracy, where only those who work are provided for? The latter, under those circumstances, seems like a recipe for violent revolution.

  103. Paul Michel, “Spending Our Way Out Of Joblessness”

    ICE “needs” a couple of billion.

    USPS “needs” a couple of billion.

    USPTO “needs” a billion.

    etc., etc., etc.

  104. See this previous Patently-O thread for Michel’s earlier attempt.

    Heeee’s BAAAAAAAACK!!!!!

    Get lost, will you Paul?

  105. Sure, that’s the answer–more money to the public service.

    More money to the already-unsustainably-overcompensated public-sector union hacks.

    Not to mention underworked.

    They wouldn’t last a day in the private sector.

    Why is the assumption that the PTO is operating anywhere near efficiently?

    I’m all for patents, and I think we should cut the funding. They do a totally crap job of examining right now anyway.

    Let’s have a cheap registration system, and let the disputes play out in an adversarial forum, where parties that actually care bring the best evidence they can to light. Long gone are the days when the PTO was the prime repository for information, and was likely to find the best art.

    The PTO is no different from any other federal agency. It is a nightmare. Let’s wake up.

  106. AI: “It does not matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, white, brown or black, ANYONE can apply for a patent.”

    Actually, this is not true. Patent examiners cannot apply for a patent. See 35 USC 4.

  107. “So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job.”

    Sorry Actual Inventor, but that statement is neither logical, nor true.

  108. The way to help innovators is to get out of their way. Don’t put up road blocks. Don’t have someone else judge thier invention. Let the marketplace judge their invention.

    Anyone that has started a business learns the way of the world. Each time you need something to make the company work, there is a person with their hand out wanting something from you. Remove as many of these people as possible and you help innovation.

  109. “14. A computer program product storing computer instructions therein for instructing a computer to perform a process for automatically determining a machine implemented estimated value of an intellectual property portfolio, the program product comprising: a recording medium readable by the computer; and the computer instructions stored on said recording medium instructing the computer to perform the process, the instructions including: (a) analyzing by the computer the intellectual property portfolio; (b) deriving by the computer first information responsive to said analyzing step (a) based upon the intellectual property portfolio stored in a first database; (c) electronically retrieving, by the computer, empirical data relating to intellectual property portfolios stored in a second database; and (d) comparing by the computer the first information derived in said deriving step (b) to the empirical data retrieved from said retrieving step (c) and generating an estimated intellectual property worth indicator indicating the worth of the intellectual property portfolio. ”

    lol

    Well, on the plus side, there’s always summary judgement.

  110. AI,

    Malcolm’s a liberal, there is no doubt. I wouldn’t say that he is “good” at scorn, but he is well-practiced. It’s familiar to him and makes him feel comfy. Why you be crashing his party?

    The whole line of this thread is vaguely familiar – didn’t Dennis have a guest post inventor who clamored about invention creating jobs but eliminating 50-60% of existing jobs (the manual labor types)? Ima just too lazy to look through the archives.

  111. Malcolm Mooney wrote: “Speaking of squeezing stuff through examination, here’s your USPTO hardly working:
    7,716,103”

    That’s not my patent or invention but if it were what would be so evil about me licensing it and earning a royalty? You can’t argue that its crap because if the patent has no value in the marketplace no one will pay to use it anyway. And if its an invention that has already been invented the patent will be invalidated in the courts.

    But what really gets me is how you thinks it’s just peachy for someone with no education, job, or husband to get p r e g n a n t and get on welfare, but let those same teens learn how to become inventors, and get patents on new computer processes and business methods that will empower them to start businesses and earn a living, and lo and behold your liberal compassion turns to scorn. Yup Mooney you would have made a good plantation owner.

  112. Why shouldn’t the Patent Bar get its own version of TARP? Aren’t we as deserving of a bailout as the financial engineers of Goldman Sachs, or our still handsomely compensated civil servants? (Well, aren’t we?)

    The proposed tax subsidy ($38,000 patents? – who knew?) would put bread on the table for many underemployed patent scribes and open up new opportunities of employment for out of work engineering grads at the Patent Office. However, I don’t see it encouraging the development of any important technology that is not already being funded because patents are too expensive to get. (The idea of a cheaper patent procurement process as a spur to innovation, when the costs of most R&D efforts dwarf even the obviously bloated figure kicked around here, seems bass ackwards.)

    Some might fret that in the long run, such spending is unsustainable, but then again in the long run we are all dead anyway.

    I would like to see the patent bar use its political clout on Capitol Hill to make this happen.

  113. Speaking of squeezing stuff through examination, here’s your USPTO hardly working:

    7,716,103

    14. A computer program product storing computer instructions therein for instructing a computer to perform a process for automatically determining a machine implemented estimated value of an intellectual property portfolio, the program product comprising: a recording medium readable by the computer; and the computer instructions stored on said recording medium instructing the computer to perform the process, the instructions including: (a) analyzing by the computer the intellectual property portfolio; (b) deriving by the computer first information responsive to said analyzing step (a) based upon the intellectual property portfolio stored in a first database; (c) electronically retrieving, by the computer, empirical data relating to intellectual property portfolios stored in a second database; and (d) comparing by the computer the first information derived in said deriving step (b) to the empirical data retrieved from said retrieving step (c) and generating an estimated intellectual property worth indicator indicating the worth of the intellectual property portfolio.

    Heckuva job, Kappos.

  114. “1) Shut down the government.

    2) Create a narrative that all government is ineffective and evil.

    3) While people suffer, blame the “liberals” in power for not doing anything and blame every minority group in sight and “activist judges” for destroying the very fabric of the country.

    4) When power is obtained, cut taxes for the rich and make it easier for the rich to make more money thereby increasing the disparity in wealth distribution, and simultaneously start some wars to feed the Republican donors and keep the bigots satisfied that we are dutifully killing our non-white pagan enemies.

    5) When kicked out of office because people are fed up with the corruption, rank incompetence, and shame brought on the country, go to step 1.”

    Maybe you could get them for patent infringement if you can squeeze this jewel through examination?

  115. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 06, 2010 at 07:17 PM”I think that last part was Stalin’s idea.”

    OMG, Mooney is quoting Stalin as a defense. Debate over.

  116. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 06, 2010 at 07:41 PM: “Once again, the Republican strategy when Democrats are in power:”

    It does not matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, white, brown or black, ANYONE can apply for a patent. Even an anti-patent, anti American, socialists-communist like you Mooney.

    The Constitutional Right to a patent represents true eqaulity in America and is what makes our system and country great!

    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

  117. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 06, 2010 at 05:24 PM: Because people on welfare don’t spend their money. You really are an unbelievable m0r0n, AI.

    _____

    Wasn’t it Bush that sent out those stimulus checks to everybody so we could all “spend” our way out of the recession?

    How’s that working for you Mooney?

    I still say it would have been better to pay the patent filing fees for Inventors with plans to start a business.

  118. Once again, the Republican strategy when Democrats are in power:

    1) Shut down the government.

    2) Create a narrative that all government is ineffective and evil.

    3) While people suffer, blame the “liberals” in power for not doing anything and blame every minority group in sight and “activist judges” for destroying the very fabric of the country.

    4) When power is obtained, cut taxes for the rich and make it easier for the rich to make more money thereby increasing the disparity in wealth distribution, and simultaneously start some wars to feed the Republican donors and keep the bigots satisfied that we are dutifully killing our non-white pagan enemies.

    5) When kicked out of office because people are fed up with the corruption, rank incompetence, and shame brought on the country, go to step 1.

  119. AI 85% of all new jobs are created by small businesses.

    link to voices.washingtonpost.com

    you know what would do a lot for small businesses? The small-business bill, which spends tens of billions of dollars opening lines of credit to small businesses that want to expand. And you know why we don’t have a small-business bill? Because Republicans are filibustering it.

    But wait, why are the Republicans filibustering the bill that would help small businesses? What possible reason could they have for filibustering this bill?

    link to washingtonindependent.com

    They also wanted consideration of Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl’s (R-Ariz.) proposal setting the estate tax at 35 percent.

    Ah yes. So a rich kid can inherit more of that money that “really isn’t his because he didn’t earn it”. And because the deficit is the worst thing ever … except for increasing the taxes on the ultra wealthy. Or something.

  120. AI: Is it really ”Their” Money if “They” didn’t earn it?

    Yes.

    It’s sort of like winning the lottery or inheriting from your rich uncle, I guess, except in order to apply you have to have no job or a really low-paying job, and you have to fill out a lot of paperwork and most of your “winnings” immediately go to paying for food and renting a place where most middle-class people don’t want to live.

    Of course, if you’re really, really lucky and happen to be mentally ill, you might even “win” a discount on your rent! I think that last part was Stalin’s idea.

  121. Posted by: Roger Karp | Aug 06, 2010 at 06:49 PM “I’m confused. I believe it was in 2005 that Jon Dudas (everybody remembers him, right?) said that less than 5% of all U.S. patents are ever commercialized. That other 95% of patents is creating jobs how (other than for the people preparing and examining them)?”

    Would that be the same Dudas responsible for the reject, reject , reject mentality that created the infamous backlog? The real question that must be asked, if indeed those stats were true, is, to whom are the other 95% of the patents being granted ? If its primarily large entities then that could be the problem. As its well known BLS says something like 85% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. So it stands to reason if you increase the number of entrepreneurs earning patents you increase the number of jobs being created.

  122. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 06, 2010 at 05:24 PM: “Because people on welfare don’t spend their money.”

    Is it really ”Their” Money if “They” didn’t earn it? Only a socialistlike you Mooney would prefer to see people dependent on state handouts rather than earning their own money from their own inventions and businesses.

  123. I’m confused. I believe it was in 2005 that Jon Dudas (everybody remembers him, right?) said that less than 5% of all U.S. patents are ever commercialized. That other 95% of patents is creating jobs how (other than for the people preparing and examining them)?

  124. On the other hand, welfare just drains it.

    Because people on welfare don’t spend their money.

    You really are an unbelievable m0r0n, AI.

  125. Posted by: “A | Aug 06, 2010 at 04:44 PM Plenty of stuff gets filed already. There’s no need to subsidize/encourage additional filings. And, by the way, if your invention isn’t worth $38K, you can’t afford to enforce it anyway.”

    I would rather see grants given to entrepreneurs that pay for patent filing fees than welfare checks given out. At least if an entrepreneuer gets a patent that makes it possible to go into business they will have created a job that fuels our economy. On the other hand, welfare just drains it.

  126. Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Aug 06, 2010 at 01:28 PM wrote: “Right. So let’s pay people to obtain patents on ways to replace people with computers and robots. Because that will create jobs.”
    _____________

    If those people that have been replaced learn to become Actual Inventors and invent new uses and/or improvements on the computers and robots, then yes that will create more jobs. They can even invent (thanks to SCOTUS Bilski) new processes and methods for the businesses that use the computers and robots. Or they can take known processes for known computers and robots and invent totally new uses!

    We must become an Inventor Nation again and NOT a socialist welfare state. That is a sure way to create more jobs, save our economy and the American way!!!

  127. “Whether you become the CEO of your own one man or woman corporation or a sole proprietor, that is a job. And the selling, or licensing of your patented invention is your income.

    So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job. ”

    I’m not 100% sure that “innovation tax collector” is a job I want to spur the growth of. How about you guys?

  128. Dennis Wrote: “In addition, it is important to recognize that patents are just one step along the road toward job creation. The idea is that patents can provide confidence and stability in business potential ventures. That confidence and stability leads to investment and job creation.”

    Dennis what you and other academics fail to fully appreciate, is that every individual that files for a patent does so in order to make money. And of course to make money those individuals will need to be entrepreneurs.

    Whether you become the CEO of your own one man or woman corporation or a sole proprietor, that is a job. And the selling, or licensing of your patented invention is your income.

    So it is a logical and undeniable fact that every new patent granted to an entrepreneur creates at least one new job.

  129. I, gasp, agree with 6. Plenty of stuff gets filed already. There’s no need to subsidize/encourage additional filings. And, by the way, if your invention isn’t worth $38K, you can’t afford to enforce it anyway.

  130. “To encourage still more entrepreneurship, Congress should also offer small businesses a tax credit of up to $19,000 for every patent they receive, enabling them to recoup half of the average $38,000 in patent office and lawyers’ fees spent to obtain a patent. Cost, after all, is the No. 1 deterrent to patent-seeking, the patent survey found. ”

    So essentially they’d like to double the backlog by enabling small businesses to flood the office with even cra ppier applications? Idk fellas, sounds like that has the possibility to backfire. Big time.

    N srsly MM. People wonder why there aren’t many good jobs. Have you looked at a car factory lately? There’s a tenth of the workers there of yesteryear. Have you seen other factories? Cigarettes, plastic wrap, computers. I personally implemented a system that killed at least a dozen jobs over the long haul. At least. Same thing. The “manufacturing base” in the US will never come back because the machines are currently occupying those jobs, not because china is somehow the shizzle.

    Well, ok, partly because china is the shizzle.

  131. “Right. So let’s pay people to obtain patents on ways to replace people with computers and robots. Because that will create jobs.”

    Dumb

  132. Oh and then there’s this to chew on:

    link to nytimes.com

    For now, companies appear nervous about expanding their payrolls too quickly. “Businesses just don’t want to hire,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics. “Workers are too costly and it’s very easy to substitute technology for labor.”

    He added that with corporate earnings rising partly on the back of cost-cutting, employers are reluctant to give up profits. “So while corporate earnings were spectacular,” Mr. Sinai said, “the job market just stinks.” ,

    Right. So let’s pay people to obtain patents on ways to replace people with computers and robots. Because that will create jobs.

    Uh-huh.

  133. So what’s to stop someone from filing (pro se) a bunch of continuations to a professionally-prosecuted parent case, making minor modifications to the claims in each, filing terminal disclaimers as necessary, and raking in the people’s money?

    One way to stop that scam would be to allow the tax credit only once for a given patent family.

    Personally I’m skeptical of the tax credit approach. If obtaining a patent is too expensive, then that’s primarily an investment problem. We ought to work to make the value of a patent more predictable to encourage private investment in innovative companies, not use across the board government subsidies.

    The tax credit scheme also runs the risk of stymieing efforts to clear the backlog by hiring more examiners and upgrading IT systems.

  134. So what’s to stop someone from filing (pro se) a bunch of continuations to a professionally-prosecuted parent case, making minor modifications to the claims in each, filing terminal disclaimers as necessary, and raking in the people’s money?

    And are patents really of such little value that we have to pay people to take them?


  135. For the average 30,000 patents issued to small businesses each year, a $19,000 innovation tax credit would mean a loss of about $570 million in tax revenue in a year. But if it led to the issuance of even one additional patent per small business, it would create 90,000 to 300,000 jobs.

    This is huge load of manure.

    The PTO should certainly be given money to hire more examiners and upgrade its systems, however.

    smashmouth Global wage arbitrage has already insured long-term mass unemployment in the U.S. It’s already baked into the cake.

    This is true. Absent a significant economic stimulus that creates useful jobs repairing the country’s infrastructure and building new infrastructure compatible with the future (e.g., we don’t need more superhighways), we are creating a huge class of

    And the corporate whxres talk about increasing the retirement age and getting rid of social security? I’m glad I graduated during the relatively progressive era of Ronald Reagan.

  136. Huh? I doubt the actual figure is even a third of that.

    That figure is consistent with AIPLA’s Economic Survey and, for what it’s worth, my own experience.

    Remember, as an average it’s going to be pulled upwards by applications that go through RCEs as well as US national applications that are the product of PCT applications. A straightforward US-only application with two OAs would cost less, but not all applications go through that easily.

  137. Re: “..the average $38,000 in patent office and lawyers’ fees spent to obtain a patent.”
    Perhaps in biotech or pharma, but not in most other technologies. Not even if after-issuance maintenance fees are included. An “average” patent application does not require a continuation or an appeal.

    But, that is irrelevant to the fact that the PTO does need serious money to fix its obsolete IT equipment and software and to hire enough examiners to reduce its unreasonable application prosecution delays.

  138. This is pure delusion. Global wage arbitrage has already insured long-term mass unemployment in the U.S. It’s already baked into the cake. Tinkering like this will only have small, marginal effects. As science and engineering also increasingly is outsourced, what we can expect will be a greater percentage of U.S. patents held by foreign entities and invented by foreigners, so there’s little reason to expect that tinkering with the patent system will be some kind of magic wand to reduce structural unemployment.

  139. “Congress should also offer small businesses a tax credit of up to $19,000 for every patent they receive, enabling them to recoup half of the average $38,000 in patent office and lawyers’ fees spent to obtain a patent.”

    Huh? I doubt the actual figure is even a third of that. This is just a veiled attempt to use taxpayer money to reinflate the now badly deflated patent bubble and keep our patent lawyers busy.

Comments are closed.