The U.S. invests more than $32 billion each year in drug and biomedical research. Why doesn't the federal government then ensure reasonable prices for drugs developed with public funds -- an appropriate return on the public's investment?
It's an Elon Musk world, and we're just living in it. Before we bow down to a seemingly fearless and altruistic pioneer of electric vehicles and libertarianism, it's important to point out the ongoing contradictions with Musk and markets.
Tesla Motors is freeing up its 200 patents to electric car competitors, throwing automotive analysts into a frenzy. But CEO Elon Musk is just following the profitable open source road paved by Salesforce, Facebook and Apple.
Congress should consider amending the patent law to appoint ethical representatives to the PTO. Its present staff, given their alternative professional backgrounds and competing professional responsibilities, cannot reasonably be expected to account for the relevant methodology and literature.
The jury is still out about how the new system is affecting companies with potentially novel inventions. But one thing is for sure: First to file is forcing inventors to be smarter and quicker about how they approach their intellectual property.
The Supreme Court's decision about today's case will either extend or crimp the capacity of patients, doctors, researchers and other biotechnology firms, to use information about the human body to detect and treat other illnesses in the future.
But what if you want to incentivize investment in bold new drugs instead of me-too drugs? What if you want to encourage research into new areas that tangibly improve people's health? Then maybe, like India, you would only grant patents when that higher standard is met.
Skepticism about the United States patent system has hit historic highs. Even groups without an obvious interest in technology policy have joined the skeptics, such as the ACLU. But is this alarm warranted? Even more importantly, is it dangerous?
Last September, our esteemed leaders in Washington passed a law reforming America's patent system called the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. At the time, the promise from every politician in support of the Act was that it would create jobs.
While I would never -- and have never -- advocated for abolishing the patent system, because that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water, we do need to fix our patent system so that it rewards innovation, not manipulation.
it is critically important to the success of our patent system that it maintain high patent quality and ensures only deserving patents are issued. Unfortunately, the American patent system today is suffering from extremely low patent quality.
There has been much reporting lately of a small patent holding company named Arrivalstar accusing public transit authorities of patent infringement if they provide commuters with real time information about train, bus or subway schedules.
When I read that Yahoo was suing Facebook my immediate reaction was disdain. As I thought more about it, I came to realize that this case could be the watershed moment that causes enough people to recognize just how horrific our patent law is.
Within the startup world, patents are seen as anti-competitive force that stifles innovation. We're in a place where we need to walk a tightrope between the world of predatory patent prosecution and the need to promote one's invention with current patent law.
The Google/Motorola deal is lawyer repellent. Or rat poison, if you prefer. It is a tragic and wasteful byproduct of our screwed-up patent system. Nevertheless, this is good for Google and Android and its ecosystem.
Prices are being paid for the power to block others from using technology they have developed independently. Too many companies are now embracing legal weapons on large-scale -- and social capital is suffering.