21 thoughts on “Inventor vs Scientist

  1. 3

    OT, but part of the burning down of the patent system theme.

    What was happening around 2000 was that the corporations recognized the NPEs as a problem and were taking proactive steps to be better than they were at patenting new ideas. They were making initiatives and budgeting to keep one step ahead of the NPEs in patenting.

    But then along came the AIA/Alice/eBay/KSR/etc. and all that is gone. The attitude in big corporations now is so what. Let them patent whatever they want. Good luck enforcing it.

    1. 3.1

      Reality. Not Lemley/Chien money-drunk delusional nonsense.

    2. 3.2

      Note as well that the initial reply of established entities was the propaganda of the “patent Tr011” narrative.

      That was never to or for the benefit of the public at large.

      Efficient Infringement remains the goal of the day.

      The capture of Congress (vis a vis ‘Friends of the Court’ AND the AIA) have been part and parcel of the longstanding EI position.

      1. 3.2.1

        That should read “capture of government,” as clearly the Friends of the Court angle serves to capture a different branch of the government than the legislative branch.

    3. 3.3

      “recognized the NPEs as a problem and were taking proactive steps to be better than they were at patenting new ideas. They were making initiatives and budgeting to keep one step ahead of the NPEs in patenting.”

      How does being better at “patenting new ideas” diminish the threat of a NPE for a corporation?

      1. 3.3.1

        That’s not a serious question, is it Ben?

        Oh wait – you are an examiner and have no real world experience with innovation, so you would not understand the concept of better patenting to create a thicket around a desired project plan.

        I “get” that your role does not necessarily create the need for you to understand the larger macroscopic world of innovation and innovation protection. I suggest that you take a course or two to better inform yourself.

        1. 3.3.1.1

          I take from your effort spent on condescension rather than an answer that you don’t know either. Perhaps NWPA will educate us both.

          1. 3.3.1.1.1

            Like most things Ben, you would be wrong.

            Inform yourself please.

          2. 3.3.1.1.2

            The proactive steps were to accelerate the innovation. The idea was to have people doing what the NPEs were doing, which was looking at what innovation was coming out and trying to get one step ahead of the corporation.

            So, what they were doing was accelerating the innovation so it wasn’t so easy to get ahead of them. They had people that were trying to take what the mainstream researchers were doing and advance it one step further to outrun the NPEs.

            Believe it or not this is something that was really going on and something that was discussed by in-house counsel.

            This was a very healthy reaction to the NPEs that would have ended the problems that they complained about.

            1. 3.3.1.1.2.1

              … tactics of portfolio management (and employing a firm’s own pre-emptive creative destruction)…

            2. 3.3.1.1.2.2

              It sounds like what was protecting them from NPEs was better R&D, not patenting.

              1. 3.3.1.1.2.2.1

                As an examiner, even you should see the correlation.

                R&D can be widespread, but patenting can provide a ‘keep-out’ buffer and then other activities within a firm can be aimed at different thrusts.

                Seriously Ben – you need to inform yourself on how innovation is actually implemented.

              2. 3.3.1.1.2.2.2

                Don’t miss a beat Ben, do you?

                You are right that better R&D was seen as the solution to fighting off the NPEs, but the reason the R&D is there in the first place is patents.

                1. but the reason the R&D is there in the first place is patents

                  Um, no.

                  The R&D is not FOR the patents.

                  Both are tools for the business objectives.

                  When you come out with a “pro-patent” view that is just not true, you end up diminishing a true “pro-patent” position.

                  You have (in other instances) shown that you understand that patents DO provide other actions (such as sharing and speaking events), so this is only a mild criticism.

                2. anon, why do you lecture me?

                  I didn’t say “for”. It is a because relationship.

                  Without patents R&D can be seen as corporate waste. Just take what others do.

  2. 2

    In the context of, say, the C19 pandemic, I’m more worried about the downturn in mentions of “scientist” than I am about the decline in the frequency of the word “inventor”. The future of the world depends more on science (evidence-based medicine) than on those who identify themselves as an “inventor”.

    1. 2.1

      Besides just (perhaps) a semantics nit, I completely disagree with your assessment and assignment of relative importance.

      As would anyone with a even moderate appreciation of the history of innovation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture