USPTO Head: Current Patent Litigation Is 'Reasonable' 153
elashish14 writes "David Kappos, head of the USPTO, today provided a strong defense of the patent system, particularly in the mobile industry. In his address, he implored critics, 'Give the [America Invents Act] a chance to work.' He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry and that the U.S. patent system is 'the envy of the world,' though he was likely only referring to the envy of the world's lawyers. Perhaps the most laughable quote from his address: 'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'"
Hey, (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
The "value" of his job is directly related to how complex the system is. Why should anyone be surprised at this? The last thing he wants is to lessen or even streamline the impact of patent law on doing business -- in terms of either monetary cost or justice itself.
The more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law, the more money there is to be made in administration. This applies to the bottom of the pyramid all the way up to the top.
Re:Can we have a little less bias in the summaries (Score:4, Interesting)
Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one. Are there fundamental problems in the USPTO? Absolutely. Companies with no intention of bringing a product to market should *never* be allowed to litigate. The USPTO definitely lets too much through.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
Re:Wonder how much Apple stock he owns? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, the Patent system works well when viewed in its historical context. They have been a net benefit for innovation.
Actually, one of the most comprehensive studies on that topic [mises.org] (Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System) concluded more or less the opposite:
If one does not know whether a system "as a whole" (in contrast to certain features of it) is good or bad, the safest "policy conclusion" is to "muddle through" - either with it, if one has long lived with it, or without it, if one has lived without it. If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it. This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America - not to a small country and not to a predominantly nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion.
Similarly, the FTC Innovation report from 2003 [ftc.gov] was also far from unequivocally positive about patents, especially in the hardware/software fields. Or Jim Bessen's research, as presented [ffii.org] (twice [ffii.org]) at an FFII conference in 2004.
For example, there are many fewer patents lawsuits regarding Smart Phones than there were in the time the original telephone was invented.
That does not exemplify how patents have supposedly been a net benefit for innovation. Additionally, you are wrongly paraphrasing the article you refer to below. It only says that nowadays, per filed patent there are fewer lawsuits than there were in the days of the fixed telephone. From that it concludes that there is no problem with the volume of patent lawsuits.
I would argue that the reason for this is that patents are used in a very different way today compared to how they were used back then (there were much less large companies back then amassing patent war chests just for defensive purposes). Arguably, the standards for patentability were also higher [ffii.org] back then, which means that actually going to court rather than only looking for the players you can convince to settle out of course was a much less risky business.
Here is a god article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/09/no-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/2/ [forbes.com]
While I appreciate that shooting the messenger by itself is not a very strong argument, that's an opinion piece by "the vice president and head of strategic acquisitions at Intellectual Ventures". That's patent troll central. Suing companies, or threatening to sue them, based on all kinds of patents is their bread and butter.
Moving on to substance, he's most definitely wrong when he claims that "Every major technological and industrial breakthrough in U.S. history [..] has been accompanied by exactly the same surge in patenting, patent trading, and patent litigation that we see today in the smartphone business". Do you remember the massive patent wars from the eighties and nineties that came with the personal computer revolution? No? Me neither. There were a few lawsuits (e.g. Stac vs Microsoft), but there most definitely was no surge like what we see today.
What we need is general legal reform so that disputes can be decided simply and inexpensively without Lawyers getting all the goodies.