The Market Effects of Recent Patent Law Revisions

The following video provides an interesting perspective on patent law from a very traditional industry leader.(Leggett & Platt developed the first steel-coil bed springs). The interviewer here is Joan Gabel who is Dean of the University of Missouri School of Business and also a lawyer by training.

20 thoughts on “The Market Effects of Recent Patent Law Revisions

  1. 3

    Frankly, I do not understand why the increased secrecy. We still have a grace period.

    1. 3.2

      Do you think that grace period is good for anything – anything in any real sense?

      As we have discussed – and as the Office has confirmed my view of just how thin that grace period has become – relying on the grace period is an invitation to be sued for malpractice. When someone can nullify the ability of anyone obtaining a patent by taking a published, but not yet filed disclosure and disclosing an obvious variant prior to the filing of that first disclosure and thus defeating the grace period, of what real use is that grace period?

      1. 3.2.1

        While anon, the Office might have its view, and then there is the law. Whether the Office is right has yet to be determined.


          An empty statement Ned, given as there has been NO cases dealing with AIA issues brought to full adjudication (remind me again how many years lapsed after the 1952 Act before the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning that act…?)

          Are you willing to not discuss any aspect of the AIA, until such aspect is adjudicated? – Hmm, thought not.

  2. 2


    A bona fide company that actually makes stuff respects the new patent laws and responds to them by diligently engaging in even more innovation.

    Nobody could have predicted.

    1. 2.3

      you missed some of the more subtle points…

      As for the more innovation, i am surprised that you did not launch into your ‘they are just grifters’ speech – after all, they are doing that stuff for money.

    2. 2.4

      Imagine understanding what patent law holds – as is STILL correctly understood from that 1908 Supreme Court case – holding that innovation does not require making stuff to have respect for the Quid Pro Quo and for promotion.

      Imagine that kicking dust over this basic and fundamental concept would not be so relentlessly pursued.

      Imagine that.

      Imagine indeed.

      Further imagine John and Jane in a world in which people are so perfect that law is unnecessary, no heaven, no he11, no countries, no religion, no hunger, no possessions, no greed (cue Gordon Gekko reply).

      And then return from that happy place and face reality. Yes, Virginia we have law. We need law. Greed, for lack of a better term, is good. We use the propensity of man wanting to “grift” for good. We WANT that fuel of interest. And yes – the more the better. If you understood that fundamental concept of Quid Pro Quo, you too would understand that more IS better.

      Give me fuel. Give me fire. On I burn.

      link to


          He should be thankful that we are making him honest in connection with such “grifting” activities… 😉

  3. 1

    Significantly more secretive…

    More timely for what will be shared… but what will be shared?

    tighter groups… remove “extraneous” discussions…

    Interesting thoughts on the self-cannibalize (but is this aspect new? – I think not)

    1. 1.1

      “More timely for what will be shared… but what will be shared?”

      What they want to share and receive a patent for?

      1. 1.1.1

        and what will be “significantly more secretive?”

        Come 6 – do you need your hand held through every thought? Are you not capable of any independent critical thinking?


              There is no next step to take. They’re still going to disclose exactly those things that they want to share and receive a patent for.


              lol, eyes clenched tight, fingers buried in his ears, chanting lalalala as 6 marches lockstep up lemming hill…

Comments are closed.