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:
-
Read the full Op-Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06nothhaft.html
-
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.
-
“ 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.
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.
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.
On “remaining silent” I think Mark Twain’s original formulation is much funnier.
“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.
Now that be embarrassin – I haveta LOL myself and my simple mind.
“::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?
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::
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
No one cares, Dear Ping that you are a basic troll.
Heh. AI, I’d give your trolling a C. Maybe a C++.
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.
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.
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!
IANAE,
AI doesn’t care that he fails at basic logic.
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.
“a capturing lever”
Means plus function?
“Version 12 appeared to be IANAE proof ”
Isn’t that like racoon proof? Sorry, but no such thing really exist.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
LOL Ah – now that’s thinking outa the box.
Food for thought:
link to steadystate.org
Betty or Wilma?
Betty AND Wilma!
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.
“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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Ned,
Let’s just say that the worker, right now, right here, does not have the individual choice that you allude to.
IANAE, works both ways. Supply and demand. When the economy is up, workers make it big time.
ping, no.
What happens?
“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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
Sigh.
Let’s just let the government hire every single unemployed person.
Problem solved.
/sarcasm off.
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?
Enlightenment gallops away over the hill…
turtles?
Enlightenment approaches … it’s turtles all the way down
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
ping: “youse gonna need a bigger government to decrease those freedoms”
New Title: Bigger Governmenting Our Way out of Joblessness
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)
Hey TINLA, youse gonna need a bigger government to decrease those freedoms.
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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
“Our remedy to enhance worker freedom would be to enhance the freedom generally.”
Precisely – Workers of the world unite!
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.
Before anyone else points it out, for “ancestors” read “descendants”
D’oh!
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.