Will Congress, Clinton Allow Narrow Corporate Interests to Reform US Patent Law in a Way that Undermines US Innovation and Global Competitiveness?

http://www.timesleader.com/news/20080404_04-PATENT_ART.html

Local inventor presses Clinton on proposed patent reform


Bill O' Boyle


Times Leader (Northeastern Pennsylvania)


April 4, 2008


Scott Spinucci of Wilkes-Barre wants to block changes he says would favor big business. A local inventor and entrepreneur pushed and shoved his way through the crowd at King’s College on Tuesday to ask Sen. Hillary Clinton a question.


Scott Spinucci, of Wilkes-Barre, who works locally and in New York City, asked Clinton how she stood on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 that will come up for a vote before the Senate in a few weeks. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Sept. 7.


“Will the candidates side with big business or the little guy?” Spinucci asked. “It’s as simple as that.”


According to CNET.com, a technology information Web site, the proposed legislation’s major provisions would create: a new framework for calculating damages in patent suits; a new, non-judicial body for mediating patent disputes early on; and limits on findings of “willful” patent infringement.


Spinucci said Clinton told him she opposes anything in the bill that would hurt manufacturers. Spinucci presented documentation showing Pennsylvania manufacturers oppose the bill; Clinton said New York manufacturers also oppose it.


During a follow-up conversation, Spinucci said Clinton seemed interested in the issue and took Spinucci’s card.


“We currently have the strongest, most robust patent system in the world – our last true great competitive advantage on the world stage,” Spinucci said. “Sadly, it seems as though, based on the Senate pushing the Patent Bill through Congress, that we’re willing to appease multinational corporations so they can offer more shareholder value. These companies are making money hand over fist while our inventors and former manufacturing workers are left to take minimum-wage jobs at Wal-Mart just to feed their families.”


Spinucci says the patent law and the continuing patent debate before the Senate is complicated, but the issues and what’s at stake are not.


“It all boils down to our livelihoods and the very future of America’s economy in the age of globalization,” Spinucci said. “It’s a matter of corporate greed re-landscaping a currently fair, level playing field for all, into their very own private parking garage.”

Spinucci alleges lobbyists for a group called The Coalition for Patent Fairness is “reforming a well-working, albeit imperfect, patent system, into one that fits their own interests.


“And that’s everything but fair,” Spinucci said. “Their assertions that the patent system is broken are completely untrue.”


If the bill becomes law, Spinucci said America would lose its last great competitive advantage.


Bill O’Boyle, a Times Leader staff writer, can be reached at 829-7218

KEI Activists Try to Promote Anti-Patent Populism to Prod Politically-Motivated Patent Reforms Reminiscent of Prior Poor Policy Proposals

The following 1886 New York Times Op-Ed was disseminated by James Love of the George Soros-Funded Activist Organization, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), in an Effort to Persuade US Policymakers & Congressional Representatives How the US Patent System is Broken and Needs to Be Replaced. Sadly, This Effort is Not Only Misguided But also Dangerous to Future U.S. Global Economic & Technological Competitiveness.


The article below is actually demonstrative of the historical ebbs and flows of U.S. patent policy during the late 19th and 20th centuries, as is reflected in additional information provided by the ITSSD following this article.


In the 19th Century, the New York Times on a number of occasions reported and editorialized on various proposals at radical reform of patent laws, including this automatic licensing [COMPULSORY LICENSING] proposal in 1886.


"PATENT LAW AMENDMENTS." The New York Times, February 11, 1886.


Representative Dunn, of Arkansas, introduced in the House on Monday a bill to prevent the establishment of monopolies under the patent laws of the United States. Section 4,884 of the Revised Statutes gives the inventor a complete monopoly of his invention. It provides that, in addition to a description of the invention, every patent shall contain "a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use and vend the invention or discovery throughout the United States and the Territories thereof." Mr. Dunn's bill amends this section by declaring that the grant to the inventor shall be, as now, for seventeen years, but instead of an exclusive and entire property in the invention, it shall cover "a royalty of 10 per centum of all gross sales of the right to make, use, and vend the same throughout the United States." Any person, it is further provided, shall have the right to make, use, and vend the patented article upon payment of the 10 per cent royalty to the patentee or his heirs or assigns.


The principle of Mr. Dunn's bill is sound and its purpose is commendable. It is obvious that some amendment of the bill would be necessary, for patented inventions vary so widely in respect to their cost of construction, the extent of the public demand for them, and the expense of putting them on the market, that a 10 per cent royalty would in many cases be a very insufficient return to the patentee for his expenditures of time, labor, money, and brains. The effect of such a law would be to discourage invention, and that would be a worse evil than the tendency to monopoly which the bill aims to check. The problem is too complicated to be solved in that simple way, but there is not the slightest doubt that a just and workable amendment to the patent laws can be drawn up which would prevent the use of the grants of the Patent Office as a foundation for greedy and oppressive monopolies.


It is high time that the interests of the people as against those of patentees received some consideration and protection. The spirit of the time is hostile to monopolies, and justly so. It is hard enough for the public to bear the exactions of corporate monopolies which have no other warrant than a charter granted under State laws and no protection save that accorded them by bribed legislators and lenient Judges. But that the great seal of the United States should be allowed to confer a license for unlimited extortion is a monstrous wrong. The doctrine that a corporation may demand "what the traffic will bear" is held to be outrageous and wicked. Yet letters patent of the United States at present grant to patentees an absolutely unrestricted right to apply this doctrine to the sale and use of their inventions. Surely there is somewhere a just limit to the profit which a patentee may be permitted to exact from the public under his grant from the Government, a limit which would yield him the due reward of his genius and insure him a full and generous return for his toil and outlay, and yet would protect the people to whom his devices were a necessity from that boundless avarice which experience has shown is often fostered in the favoring and secure shelter of a patent. Such a restriction would not discourage inventors, and it would have the salutary effect of making useful inventions more widely available.


There is one form of extortion under the patent laws, and it is the most common one which ought to be made impossible. The best example of this kind of legalized pillage is furnished by the Bell Telephone Company. That company, protected by a patent whose validity is strenuously disputed, exacts and annual rent of $14 from the local companies for telephone instruments which cost $3.42. That is the whole case in a nutshell of robbery by royalty. As a consequence of this 350 per cent profit and of its great revenues from the local companies, whose stock it holds to the face value of $22,000,000, the capital stock of the Bell Company, according to the statement of Boston newspapers, has been "watered" to seven times its original amount, and still the dividends are 17 per cent upon the enormously inflated capital. No such monopoly as that ought to exist by the sanction of the Government.


There should be most assuredly a well defined limit to extortion in the form of rent or royalty upon patented machines and devices. And the privilege of exacting royalties is one which should never be accorded save with reasonable safeguards. It ought not to be possible for a patentee to exact his own price with no alternative to the user. The latter should have the option of purchase outright in lieu of royalty or rent paid at stated periods; and the permissible royalty or rent would naturally become the basis of the purchase price. A patentee ought to be content to sell his machine or device at a fair price, and the user ought to have the right of absolute ownership in it if he chooses to remunerate the patentee in that way.


James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)


**********************************************************************************
It is no surprise that U.S. government treatment of patents, copyrights & trade secrets has long been influenced by concerns and fears about economic downturns.


“A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States”


According to at least legal commentator,


“[D]ifferent attitudes...have prevailed at [] different times and...have had...effects on...the...development of [] patent law...In the last two decades of the nineteenth century there was a period of economic depression and increasing concern about the power of "big business" leading to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. This climate was reflected in the patent field by an increasing tendency of the courts to hold patents invalid. By the late 1890's the depression had run its course and patents came back into favor with the reviving economy. In general the twentieth century has seen a dynamic interrelationship between the patent system and the application of antitrust laws. Although the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, was enacted in 1890, the courts did not start to give it teeth until Theodore Roosevelt’s administration (1901-1909). It was not until the 1930's that the patent system started to come under attack, being viewed as assisting in the maintenance of monopolies that were seen as being at least a contributing factor to the economic misery of the thirties. This skepticism about the patent system survived World War II and blossomed again in the depressed economic conditions of the 1970's, a period of strong anti-trust enforcement...In the early 1980's, the thinking of the Chicago School of economists came to the fore and with the election of President Reagan enthusiasm for antitrust enforcement went out of fashion.” (Ladas & Perry, LLP – 2003)



Source: Rediscovering the Value of Intellectual Property Rights, Presented at The 20th Liberty Forum Of Instituto de Estudos Empresariais - iee “Property Rights and Development”, ‘IP in the 21st Century: Challenges & Concerns’, in Porto Alegre, Brazil
April 17, 2007, accessible at: http://www.itssd.org/ppt/IPinthe21stCentury.ppt .

Silly Apologist-Analyst Recommends That America Give Away its Future IP-Based Economy to the World

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0825trade_klemens.aspx


U.S. Patent Imperialism Hurts American Interests


August 25, 2006 —


The Patent Reform Act of 2006 (S.3818), introduced to the Senate floor on August 8, will entirely fail to reform patents. The bill makes important modifications to rules on filing and review of paperwork, but the Senate has chosen to overlook many serious problems with patents that cost consumers billions of dollars and embarrass the U.S. internationally.


Much of this excess cost and embarrassment comes as a result of a double standard between imports and domestic goods. All patent disputes may be tried in U.S. District Courts, but disputes over imports may also be tried at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a branch of the Department of Commerce. The ITC uses a broader definition of patent infringement than the district courts, meaning that an import may be found to infringe on a patent that it would not infringe upon if it were produced in the U.S. Such a double standard affects U.S. taxpayers and consumers, who have fewer choices and more monopolies with which to contend.


[THIS COMMENTATOR IS OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, WHICH PERMITS THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION (ITC) TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS BROUGHT BY PARTIES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER ALLEGEDLY 'PIRATED' IMPORTED ARTICLES SHOULD BE BARRED FROM ENTERING THE U.S. UNDER SECTION 337 THE ITC POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY TO EXCLUDE IMPORTS BECAUSE OF 'UNFAIR ACTS', 'UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION' OR 'ACTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT' COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH IMPORTATION. AS CONCERNS THE PROCEDURAL LIGITATION METHODS REFERENCED, THE COMMENTATOR IS OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO A 1989 GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT) PANEL DECISION WHICH FOUND THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SECTION 337 HAD VIOLATED THE NATIONAL TREATMENT PROVISIONS OF THE GATT INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW. THE URUGUAY ROUND OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO WHICH THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WAS CREATED, ADDRESSED THESE VIOLATIONS. AS A RESULT, FOLLOWING U.S. ACCESSION TO THE WTO AGREEMENTS, CONGRESS IN 1995 ENACTED IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION TO AMEND SECTION 337, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW WTO REQUIREMENTS].


[THIS COMMENTATOR'S ARGUMENT APPEARS TO OBJECT TO SECTION 337 AS AMENDED, MUCH AS THE EUROPEAN UNION DID DURING 2000. SEE: UNITED STATES SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO Request for Consultations by the European Communities and their member States, WT/DS186/1 IP/D/21 18 (January 2000) AT: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2004/january/tradoc_114327.pdf ].


Over the past decade, there have been abundant examples of how patent law has been stretched too far to the detriment of U.S. consumers and manufacturers. The reader may recall the problems faced by the makers of the Blackberry, who faced a lengthy patent battle in domestic courts over software on its Canadian email servers. In hearing that case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) declared that if "control and beneficial use" of a device is in the U.S., then it is beholden to U.S. patent law. With this simple declaration, millions of web sites all around the world suddenly had liability exposure in U.S. courts.


In another example, Creative, Inc., claims that the iPod violates its patent on organizing songs by artist, album, and genre (U.S. patent #6,928,433). Since the iPod is made abroad, Creative sued Apple in domestic courts and petitioned the ITC to block their U.S. sale. On Wednesday, with the threat of an iPod ban looming, Apple paid Creative $100 million to withdraw its complaints.


And the dueling standards collide at a cost to the government, too. For example, Amgen, Inc., has a patent on Epogen, a drug that treats anemia in patients who are on dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Thanks to its patent, Amgen is the monopolist vendor of a life-saving drug—and it sets its price accordingly. Every year, Medicare pays over $1 billion for this drug alone.


[THIS COMMENTATOR TAKES THE IDEOLOGICAL POSITION THAT ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY PATENTS ON HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS AND DEVICES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, CONSTITUTE ILLEGAL MONOPOLIES. THIS POSITION IS AKIN TO THAT ADVANCED BY SOME EMERGING ECONOMIES SUCH AS BRAZIL AND BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SUCH AS THAILAND.]


A Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche, has a drug that would compete head-to-head with Epogen, and thus force down Epogen's price and possibly improve patient outcomes—except the drug is produced abroad. Roche's product is likely to be found to be a valid, non-infringing competitor to Amgen's patents and products in U.S. District Courts, but will have a harder time getting past the ITC's broader definition of patent infringement. As a result, Amgen may continue to bill Medicare at the full monopoly price.


Maintaining a separate definition of patentability for imports directly violates WTO treaties mandating non-discrimination. Other court-invented innovations in patent law also create a growing rift between the U.S. and the rest of the world that will be a liability for the U.S. in negotiations over trade and tariffs.


[THE U.S. CONGRESS AMENDED SECTION 337 TO COMPLY WITH THE WTO AGREEMENTS].


All of the rulings that have shaped patent law in the last few decades have come from the CAFC, a court founded in the early 1980s to resolve patent and trade disputes. It is heavily stocked with former prominent patent attorneys, so it no surprise that the CAFC has actively expanded the powers of patents well beyond pre-1980 limits.


[THIS COMMENTATOR TAKES ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT A UNIQUE COURT (THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ESTABLISHED TO IMPROVE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND ADJUDICATION OF PATENT DISPUTES) POSSESSING SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. OTHER IMPORTANT PIECES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING PATENT RIGHTS WAS ENACTED TO IMPROVE, AND REMARKABLY IMPROVED, U.S. GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS - NAMELY THE BAYH-DOLE ACT. ALSO THE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT WAS ENACTED DURING SUCH TIME. IT IMPROVED CONSUMER ACCESS TO GENERIC DRUGS].


Rather than striving to maximize innovation and economic benefits, the CAFC tends to rule via tortuously close readings of statute. Its ruling that established the separate ITC standard for patent infringement is based almost entirely upon a reading of the boilerplate phrase "for purposes of this title." Its statement regarding "control and beneficial use" is nowhere to be found in statute, but did build upon a prior CAFC divination—that the Congress of 1952 intended that software would one day be patentable.


Patent law has been expanded and forcefully exported by a single court, without oversight by Congress. Internationally, the courts' favoring of domestic producers over importers, and the CAFC's self-declaration that it has jurisdiction over any Internet-enabled computer in the world, has put U.S. trade negotiators in a weaker position and will hurt Americans in the long run. Domestically, it has created the usual problems associated with unfettered monopolies: prices rise, choices diminish, and consumers suffer.


Congress needs to take real action to explicitly establish a single standard for patent infringement regardless of the manufacturer's address, and to restore the scope of patents to where it was before the CAFC's unilateral expansions. The Patent Reform Act of 2006 is not enough.

Bush Administration Sees Wisdom of Preserving US Global Competitiveness in Life Sciences; IT Coalition Patent Reform Position Deemed Spurious

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BUOGURRUS.DTL


Bush staff, tech titans split over patent bill


Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer


Tuesday, February 5, 2008


The Bush administration said Monday that it opposes a key provision of a patent reform bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting a floor vote in the Senate, taking sides in an intellectual war over how best to promote innovation.


The position puts the administration at odds with big technology firms like Intel, IBM, Apple, Google, Cisco and Hewlett-Packard that have banded together to push the bill, and squarely on the side of the biotech and venture capital industries, which say the proposed change would significantly weaken patents.


A patent is a government-issued monopoly that gives inventors the legal right to control the use of their discoveries for up to 20 years.


[A PATENT IS RECOGNIZED AS A PROPERTY RIGHT OF TEMPORARY DURATION UNDER U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL LAW]


In a six-page letter written on behalf of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the administration told senators that it disagrees with a provision that would change the way damages are calculated in cases when patent infringement is proven. That change "could promote infringement,"the administration warned, saying it would oppose the legislation unless the bill is changed to "protect the inventor."


"What the administration is saying on damages is our position as well," said Kelly Slone with the National Venture Capital Association, which has sent senators a letter signed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, New Enterprise Associates and others.


Mark Isakowitz, a lobbyist with the tech-sponsored Coalition for Patent Fairness, downplayed the significance of Monday's letter, saying the administration made much the same argument before the House passed its patent bill by a 220-175 vote in autumn.


"We strongly and respectfully disagree with their view," said Isakowitz, adding that he still expects the bill to come up for a floor vote in the Senate around the end of February. "Between now and then we have to try and reach a broader consensus on damages," he said.


Patents are authorized in Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science." But the Constitution does not say exactly how, which has meant a never-ending series of arguments, said Kenneth Dobyns, a retired patent attorney who wrote a history of the system called "The Patent Office Pony."


"There's never been a time when it wasn't like this," Dobyns said.


At the heart of the current dispute is the fact that patents, which have been on a sort of pendulum swing throughout U.S. history, from worth very little to worth very much, are somewhere at the high end of their historical value.


The reasons have little to do with Congress, which has not really changed patent law since 1952, but rather with a reorganization of the federal court system in the 1980s. That change created what amounts to a special court of appeals for patent cases that has, generally speaking, ended up strengthening patent law, according to Bronwyn Hall, a UC Berkeley economist who has studied the situation.


Perhaps the high point of patent strength, at least to members of Congress, came in recent years when the Canadian company Research In Motion paid $612.5 million in March to settle a patent dispute that had very nearly lead to a court-ordered injunction stopping sales of the BlackBerry device, which is popular on Capitol Hill.


The size of the settlement and the drama leading up to it lent credence to tech industry complaints about patents.


"We have a system which is out of whack, out of balance," said Tim Sheehy, a Capitol Hill lobbyist for IBM Corp., which backs the current language on damages that the White House opposes.


Biotech industry leaders feel particularly threatened by proposed changes because their whole industry has grown up in the past 25 years when, largely thanks to court actions, patents have become more and more valuable.


"If it comes down to a choice between a tilt toward the iPod or a tilt toward cancer cures, I think that's a no-brainer," said James Greenwood, president of Biotechnology Industry Organization.


What remains to be seen is whether the disagreement over damages can be ironed out, or whether the bill will stall.


"A forced choice is a false choice. The current proposal forces a choice of promoting one innovation over another," said Patent Office Director Jon Dudas, who held out hope of an agreement being reached.


E-mail Tom Abate at tabate@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BUOGURRUS.DTL