Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

8 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 4

    OT, but why (k)not?

    Is math discovered or invented? – Jeff Dekofsky

    https://youtu.be/X_xR5Kes4Rs

  2. 3

    This Article identifies and explores a key problem with th[e] argumen [that lower prices for prescription drugs would harm innovation incentives]: that it is typically deployed both accidentally and asymmetrically in nature. Specifically, this Article considers previous changes to health laws that had the impact of increasing innovation incentives by providing large new subsidies to pharmaceutical companies – chiefly the creation of Medicare Part D and the passage of the Affordable Care Act…

    I have not read Prof. Sachs article, so I do not want to sound too harsh a criticism here, but the abstract sure sounds strange. Why should I think of Medicare Part D as an “incentive” to innovation. Merely throwing money at drug companies is not “incentivizing” innovation.

    The reason why one should be chary of patent reforms aimed at pharma companies is that patents—while they bring money to pharma companies—really are specifically tied to incentivizing innovation. One only gets a patent at all if one innovates, and its time limited nature means that you need to get that innovation to market quickly, before the patent runs out. By contrast, Medicare Part D pays drug makers whether they innovate or not, and those Part D dollars will be there next year just like they were there last year, so there is no urgency about Part D.

    It is not helpful to think of all money that is poured into pharma as if a dollar is a dollar, and all of them are as innovation-incentivizing as the others. That is just not how anyone in the industry thinks about this subject.

    1. 3.1

      I hear you – maybe the disconnect is “dollar from government — or tied to government program.”

      It may be an easy “mistake” for an academic to make, seeing as most have a “natural” [read that as systemic] bias towards socialistic tendencies, and thus, any “dollar from the State” reads the same.

  3. 2

    So is the intention behind the count filter to amplify people who’ll evade the count filter, or is that just an unaddressed byproduct of some other intention?

  4. 1

    The Oliva article is actually pretty cool – but I would have gone with a different figure.

    1. 1.1

      Sadly for Hyundai, because crabs have been walking since, oh, almost the dawn of life on Earth, this patent and its claims are . . . abstract.

      . . . an’ if the Examiner doesn’t catch that . . . an’ the patent is ever challenged . . . the Death Squad PTAB will . . . an’ if they don’t, the Dist. Ct will . . . an’ if they don’t, the CAFC will . . .

      1. 1.1.1

        Hmm, as birds did not prevent the Wright brothers, perhaps crabs won’t disturb the attempt here.

        Now, science fiction on the other hand….

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