[IP] Re: Is This Foreshadowing of American Innovation?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronald Lachman <ron@catbird.com>

Date: June 24, 2009 12:28:38 PM EDT

Subject: Re: [IP] Is This Foreshadowing of American Innovation?

There was a case last year (Bilsky) that essentially disallows software patents. Although software patents have certainly been abused, a significant percentage of the patent office's work (and fees) were the result of computer software related patents. A good portion of American innovation and patents in recent decades have revolved around concepts that are no longer allowable for patenting. Patent holders and inventors (like myself) are therefore not able to patent software related patents, and not paying renewal fees.

Although investment in innovation may be down somewhat, I am under the impression that it is legal precedent that is causing most of the patent office's budget shortfall. Its worth a real discussion in the IP list, because this legal precedent is making real software and algorithmic innovation difficult to patent (RSA type patent would probably have a struggle today). My group of companies is struggling to get some truly innovative things patented (ECC / new erasure codes and the like) and its just a different world this year working with the new patent guidelines that require a more "tangible" invention than algorithms and software.

--- Different, but somewhat related topic:

Today's regulatory environment is not only more difficult for inventors, but the process of raising money is made more difficult by regulations as well. The unintended consequences of the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 has effectively put a $500k a year regulatory compliance tax on small public companies. Most small public companies are (were?) technology companies, and the window for taking companies public is closed at least partly because of the costly required compliance. Fewer successful executives want to serve on boards, particularly for public companies, because of the personal liability imposed by the 21st century trend in regulations that is generally less friendly to technology capitalists.

On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:25 AM, David Farber wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: bnmeeks@verizon.net
Date: June 24, 2009 10:29:24 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Is This Foreshadowing of American Innovation?

Since we've been discussing patents in the last couple of days, I thought the following short article about the PTO needing more money because its revenue stream, derived from the filing of patents and trademarks, has fallen off so dramatically. What does this mean (if anything) for American innovation?

From Congress Daily
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090624_3058.php (If this link is unreachable because subscription is needed, I apologize in advance):

by Andrew Noyes
The Patent and Trademark Office is asking Congress to help stabilize the agency, which is facing a substantial decrease in the number of patent applications filed, Acting Director John Doll told employees in a Tuesday memo. The agency, which is funded through fees collected from its users, this week suspended overtime pay for patent examiners and this year instituted a hiring freeze. All of this has been done with an eye toward avoiding furloughs.
"We're now putting forward a number of different options to bridge any possible gaps, and we'll also be soliciting ideas from members of Congress," Doll wrote, acknowledging that in the recession, fee collection could continue to decline. With the support of Commerce Secretary Locke, the PTO is seeking additional cost reduction measures that would save an additional $20 million in FY09, he said.
[snip]

Archives

interesting-people message