Contests can be one of the most interesting innovation tools. With the right challenge and incentives, creative groups from across the world can help invent and innovate rapidly. The creativity of crowds fueled by a content was just demonstrated in the Shredder Challenge contest that was launched October 2011 by the U.S. government’s DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). DARPA wanted to know what could be achieved with computer tools in reassembling shredded documents to recover the originals. Since many different approaches were possible, this was an excellent candidate for crowdsourcing. Rather than hire a huge team for a short while to pursue many different paths, or use a small team pursuing many paths over a long period of time, just throw this one out to the crowds for healthy competition. The objective in this competition was to create a system for reconstructing shredded documents. The system would have to demonstrate success by reassembling the shreds from five documents whose shredded remains were posted on a website. As reported at Gizmag, the “All Your Shreds Are Belong to U.S.” team won the $50,000 prize for this contest by assembling all five documents two days before the Dec. 4 deadline. Given the hours that the winning team put into this competition, $50,000 was a very good deal for DARPA (and the American taxpayers) and not such a good deal for the winning team. If you consider all the thousands of additional hours put in by many other teams working on the competition, DARPA got quite a lot for a small investment.
Companies can and do this kind of thing as well, with varying degrees of success. Capturing the imagination of people with the skills needed for the problem is the key. Prizes help, along with fame and bragging rights. Intellectual property issues can get in the way for some companies. I’ll point to Local Motors as one of the leading examples of for-profit crowdsourcing. Their business model is sophisticated and highly refined, something I’ve written about here previously.
As for the hilarious title of the winning group, you might enjoy reviewing the history of the classic phrase, “All your base are belong to us.”
Chinese Auto Innovation Rolling Westward
By · CommentsThe impact of innovation in China is often not obvious to the West, even when many gadgets like the iPhone draw upon innovations from China and Taiwan that make many Western products possible. Not many Chinese brands have spread outside the borders of China, leading some observers to question the significance of Chinese innovation in full-fledged products and not just components or manufacturing methods. China is just beginning to learn how to develop brands that will succeed in the West. The apparent dearth of brand-based innovation from China should change in the coming decade. Some of the front-runners might be found in the automotive industry.
The Chinese automobile brand, Chery, is already rolling westward. A friend of mine spotted it on-sale in Kiev, Russia, and sent me these photos (photos courtesy of Martin Daffner). Chery, now one of China’s leading exporters, began exports in 2001 to Syria and now sells its cars in the European nations of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, Turkey and Italy (per Wikipedia) and as of 2012 will be marketing also in Australia, Singapore, and South Africa. Chery’s strategy is to expand in developing countries first and then enter more developed countries.
As Chinese brands move to the West, we will increasingly see Chinese companies getting their IP stolen unless they take proactive steps early to protect it. It’s already happening in the realm of trademarks, as Li Yongbo reports in the China Daily article, “More Chinese brands victims of IPR violations.”
Related stories:
- Auto Innovation—China Style (Businessweek)
First, Align All the Lawyers
By · CommentsMany companies seeking innovation overlook their own internal barriers to innovation success. One of the biggest barriers can be their own attorneys. Lawyers are needed for many aspects of innovation, such as drafting the agreements with partners in open innovation and protecting IP with patents, trademarks, and other intellectual assets. The skill of a good lawyer who understands the business and its needs will often make the difference between success and disaster. But frequently non-lawyers fail to recognize how broad the spectrum of lawyer quality is and how non-standardized and diverse the practice of law can be. People with a technical or financial background, who are used to seeking and finding “correct answers” in problems of math, engineering, and accounting, might not recognize how subjective and variable in style and outcome the work of lawyers can be. More specifically, they might not recognize how ridiculous and counterproductive the work of their attorneys is.
In working with various companies seeking to promote innovation, I’ve sometimes watched in horror as a single misguided attorney not only impedes deals but even destroys relationships as he or she seeks short-term gains that destroy the long-term potential in a relationship. The tone of an attorney’s work can exude distrust and harshness at a time when trust and friendship needs to be built. Opportunities can be destroyed by an attorney urging the client to twist the screws to extort unreasonable gains from a potential partner, by pushing for extreme terms, by treating every encounter with the outside world or with inside employees as an adversarial relationship to be won at all costs. I’ve seen good innovators walk away from partnerships or even from their own companies through the antics of poor lawyers.
When it comes to innovation and partnerships, managers must not assume that their legal team know what they are doing (in spite of genuine excellence in the letter of the law), and instead must take steps to educate the attorneys about the relationships they wish to build, the tone they wish to convey, and the long-term goals they seek. Innovation success may require aligning your legal team with the not only the business goals but the principles to be pursued, the relationships to be strengthened and the spirit and character they wish to show.
Don’t take Shakespearean extremes. Rather, first simply align all you lawyers. Then you’ll be a little more likely to overcome innovation fatigue.
Another Invisible Chinese Company: Lenovo
By · CommentsFollowing up on the mind-numbing failure of Thompson-Reuters to include ANY Chinese or Taiwanese company on their list of the 100 Top Global Innovators, let me mention one more that should be there: Lenovo. This Chinese multinational company had 402 US patents granted from 2005 to 2010, well above the numbers obtained by some other companies on the TR list supposedly based on patent activity. They have international scope and are now the world’s 2nd largest maker of personal computers. Annual sales are over $20 billion. This puts them above many of the less-known companies on the TR list. OK, Lenovo inventors listed on patents are more likely to be from the US or Japan than from China, so Lenovo’s IP situation arguably doesn’t speak to innovation in China per se, but based on the stated criteria of TR, one would think that this Chinese company should still merit attention as a global innovator, regardless of which part of the globe their R&D centers are located.
In my recent post, “Invisible Innovation: The Blindness of the West to China’s Innovation Story,” I lamented the failure of the Thompson Reuters list of 100 top global innovators to include anything from China (and Taiwan). In that post, I erred in stating that Foxconn’s 700+ US patents in the 2005-2010 time period for the TR study was greater than some of the companies that made the list. The error is that I should also have added Foxconn’s patent company to the search. By searching for “Hon Hai Precision” or Foxconn, I now see that we’re dealing with a company has over 5800 patents, more than three times as many as Apple in the same time period. What this means is that I was wrong in saying that Foxconn has more patents than SOME of the companies in the list–they actually have more than MOST of the companies on the list. The invisibility problem I discussed is even worse than I thought when such a mammoth patent estate escapes notice.
So how was Hon Hai/Foxconn overlooked, when they have more international IP activity than Apple and most of the companies listed? How is that possible, when their innovations are a major part of the Apple success story, and when they are the world’s largest maker of electronics? An electronic cloak of invisibility seems to have covered Foxconn and other Chinese or Taiwanese companies, making Chinese innovation largely invisible to the West. It’s time to take the cloak off.
One of the hottest areas for innovation globally is in improved foods and beverages that benefit human health. Unfortunately, bureaucrats are among the biggest barriers that innovators face in this field. In the United States, something as uncontroversial as the well-known relationship between citrus fruit and scurvy (that is, citrus fruit can prevent or help cure scurvy) becomes a dangerous proposition in the hands of a bureaucrat. One VP with a major global food company explained to me that selling an orange with the claim that it “may help prevent scurvy” could get you thrown in jail in the U.S. under the strict rules of the FDA, rules which make it exceedingly difficult to pursue innovation in food, no matter how strong the science is. But the innovation barriers from regulations in the U.S. may be dwarfed by those that are metastasizing in Europe, especially under the heavy hand of the EFSA (European Food Standards Authority). The fantasy land of bureaucrat anti-imagination in Europe is so other-worldly that you can become a criminal for claiming that “water may help prevent dehydration.” Incredible? Impossible? Here’s what Victoria Ward and Nick Collins report in The Telegraph, Nov. 18, 2011 (excerpt):
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day….
German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.
They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.
They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.
However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.
Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
The ruling is more than merely laughable. For those on the cutting edge of advanced foods and beverages, it is an ominous sign of the innovation fatigue from government that is increasingly strangling Europe and much of the Western world. The inability to make reasonable, scientifically-supported claims about the benefits of healthy foods and beverages is one that will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship in Europe. I’d rather have to do my own homework to understand the validity of health claims than to have bureaucrats completely stifle innovation in health-promoting goods. Give me the Wild West of unrestrained innovation, with all the risks and bad claims that might follow, rather than a sterile 1984 society in Oceania which hordes of bureaucrats protect me from myself and everything new. But between those two extremes are many healthy, democratic alternatives in which sound legislation reduces the most egregious crimes while allowing innovators for the most part to move forward.
Here in China, where some of the best beverages in the world are to be found, I’m happy to say that soft-drink entrepreneurs appear to still have the freedom to declare that aqueous beverages reduce thirst and help prevent dehydration. Watch for the world’s epicenter of food and beverage innovation to increasingly shift toward China, if it’s not already firmly rooted here.
Maybe China is just too far from the smug innovation circles of the West. Maybe language and cultural barriers make the events unfolding in China too inaccessible to Western media. Maybe decades of concern about IP theft from Chinese companies has closed the eyes of the West to present realities. Whatever the reason, the West today seems generally blind to the innovation powerhouse that China is becoming. Witness, for example, the highly publicized list from Reuters-Thompson of the top 100 global innovators, based on “patent activity.” With China having become one of the world’s true hotbeds of patent activity, not to mention economic impact with innovation in many fields, one might expect Chinese institutions to be well represented on the list. Incredibly, the list has ZERO Chinese entities on. None from Mainland China, none from Taiwan, and none from anywhere else in Asia except for a heavy dose of Japanese companies (27) and 4 from South Korea. Tiny Switzerland makes the list 3 times, and its minute neighbor, Liechtenstein, makes the list with Hilti Corporation. But zero from China and Taiwan? The list is related to “patent activity,” but its compilers wisely recognize that patent volume alone is a poor metric for innovation. Instead, they have created other metrics based on patent data:
The Thomson Reuters 2011 Top 100 Global Innovators are companies that invent on a significant scale; are working on developments which are acknowledged as innovative by patent offices across the world, and by their peers; and, whose inventions are so important that they seek global protection for them.
Sounds fair. So sure, the manufacturing and supply chain innovation that has been a big part of China’s economic rise are not expected to make a showing on this list. That kind of innovation doesn’t show up in terms of granted US and European patents. And the tendency for many Chinese companies to mostly file patents in China doesn’t help them with the methodology Thompson Reuters has, which looks for measures of international impact and international patents. But did they miss all the international activity of some Chinese companies? For example, a couple of days before this list of innovators came out, I posted this on LinkedIn and Twitter (@jefflindsay):
Two Chinese companies, ZTE and Huawei Tech., are among the top 5 international (PCT) patent applicants. Lots of IP here! http://is.gd/t2tUb4
OK, so Thompson Reuters doesn’t follow me, but these companies should have shown up strongly in their patent searches. These are innovative companies with products marketed internationally, having strong economic impact, and loads of patents. Being in the top 5 for international filings wasn’t good enough to even place in the top 100 for Thompson Reuters. Huh? OK, it turns out the ZTE’s surge in patent filings is recent and their numbers prior to 2010 were probably too low to make the cut for this study–that’s fair. But Huawei had 445 US patents from 2005 to 2010, a number in greater than some other companies on the list. For 2011, by the way, Huawei isn’t just in the top 5 so far–they are Number One, the world’s leader in international patent filings (see the Nov. 2011 article in the Vancouver Sun). Think they’ll be on the next list of leaders in patent activity Thompson Reuters publishes? Perhaps, who knows?
How about the Liechtenstein firm that’s in the Top 100, Hilti AG. Heard of them? They have good products for the construction and building maintenance industries such as hammer drills and other tools. They have 20,000 employees, including 2,500 in the US, and market products and file patents internationally. For the 2005-2010 time frame of the Thompson Reuters study, Hilti had 327 patents. Not bad. Well below Huawei’s score, but still respectable.
Now let’s consider a little company that was not on the list: Foxconn. Heard of them? They have over 1 million employees and are the world’s largest producer of electronic components, including circuit boards. They are the ones who actually make Apple’s products such as the iPhone and iPad. This Taiwanese/Chinese firm (China considers Taiwan to be part of China, and much of Foxconn’s work is in China) is arguably the real powerhouse behind the success of Apple and several other companies on the Thompson Reuters list. Foxconn builds Apple’s products, and not just as a mindless executor, but as an innovative partner.
Ah, but what about real technological innovation expressed in patents? Surely Foxconn is just about cheap labor and low cost manufacturing, right? A quick search of Foxconn patents granted in the US from 2005 to 2010 shows they have over 700 patents. Some are design patents, but the vast majority are technological. Foxconn apparently is conducting serious R&D and spending millions on patents to find new ways to make leading edge high-tech products better, safer, faster, and cooler (both in terms of heat management and the “wow” factor). I have the privilege of interacting with some Foxconn people and from what I’ve seen and heard I can say that they have a world-class IP program to support innovation, and I feel that they are way ahead of many Western companies in these areas. Foxconn innovation and Foxconn IP may be the real key to Apple’s success. Foxconn innovation is abundantly expressed in patents, not just trade secrets and know how, with an estate twice as big as Hilti’s over 2005-2010 and an economic impact on the global market far in excess of Hilti. But Foxconn doesn’t make the list. How do none of these Chinese companies break into Thompson Reuters’ Top 100? Did they miss the 2010 story, “China Poised to Become Global Innovation Leader,” based on patent activity? That must be from another source they don’t follow.
Nov. 24, 2011 Update: My search on Foxconn patents needs to be updated. Yes, Foxconn has an impressive 700+ US patents for the 2005-2010 period, more than some companies in the TR list. But my search was deficient, failing to consider that many Foxconn patents might have been filed under the real name of the company that owns Foxconn, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. So I expanded my search term to be “Hon Hai Precision” or Foxconn. Now, instead of 700 patents, we’re looking at a massive estate of 5,872 US patents (perhaps a couple dozen more when typographical errors are considered). This estate now dwarfs MOST of the companies on the list such as Brother Industries (2873, searching for Brother Ind* or Brother Kogyo), BASF (2771, searching for BASF or Bayerische Akt*) Goodyear (1152), ABB (948), Airbus (926), Avaya (<600), Arkema (205), Cheil (116), etc. Oh, and what about innovation giant Apple Compute? A search for simply "Apple" (which might include some smaller companies unrelated to Apple Computer) returns 1809 issued US patents from 2005 to 2010, less than 1/3 of the US patent activity of the invisible innovator that makes Apple what it is.
Let’s return to Huawei for a moment. There should be little doubt about the innovation prowess of Huawei, even though they tend to be far more secretive and do much less P.R. than Apple. But this telecom company is big (with over 100,000 employees, they connect 1/3 of the world’s cell phones) and highly innovative. Read, for example, BBC’s story, “Innovation in China: Huawei – the secretive tech giant.” Maybe the Thompson Reuters methodology docks them for being on the young side. Over half of their 445 US patents from 2005 to 2010 came in 2010–but they still clearly outpace Hilti and others over the 5-year span of the study. So what gives? I suspect that the youthfulness of the estate means there has been less time for others to cite Huawei patents, and that may be part of the problem since patent citations are part of the methodology. But to miss Huawei completely?
Thompson Reuters will surely argue that their methodology was developed and implemented fairly, even blindly (a fair term), but someone should have immediately seen that something was wrong if top international filers and innovators like Huawei, and Foxconn didn’t make the list. But when it comes to innovation, innovation in China tends to be largely invisible to Americans, who are stuck in the old paradigm of US being the innovation leader and China just being a copier. That kind of blindness will catch the West by surprise in the very near future when US companies find themselves facing numerous patent barriers from the Chinese companies that will own much of the most valuable IP. China is creating and will create much of the most important global innovation for the future. Innovation needs to ramp up in the West in order to not be left completely behind.
Dec. 8 Update: Chinese computer giant Lenovo, the world’s 2nd largest producers of personal computers, may also deserve to be on the list.
Related stories:
- IAM Blog: “The US, Japan and France dominate new listing of the world’s most innovative companies“
- Nielsen.com: “Nielsen China Forum: Dispelling the Myths of Innovation in China“
- China Law Blog: “Innovation In China. It’s Happening, But Not How You Think“
- Tech Crunch: “Thomson Reuters Names ‘Top 100 Global Innovators’“
On Sept. 16, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith “America Invents Act” which supposedly will strengthen innovation and improve our patent system. It’s a radical change in our patent system–one that seems to have been drafted by people who don’t fully understand patents or innovation.
Does this bill promote innovation as advertized? What about that 15% rate hike for patent fees–a new 15% tax on the IP that entrepreneurs need. That’s the most immediate and obvious change. Guess which way that increased burden tilts the balance? Economics 101 suggests that making innovation more expensive is not likely to make it more abundant. But Congress may know better.
Congress apparently recognizes that we have a problem with the patent system, where huge backlogs exist that cause enormous delay and expense for inventors. The backlog and efficiency problem they are allegedly fixing, however, does not require all the unintended consequences of revising patent law but simply improving the administration of the PTO. For example, if Congress would refrain from siphoning off many millions of dollars of PTO funds each year, effectively taxing innovation and crushing the ability of the PTO to properly staff itself and keep its systems up to date, then the backlog could be easily resolved, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we seem to have another case of politicians proposing costly solutions that won’t solve the costly problems that they caused. As long as Congress can redirect funds received by the PTO, the administrative problems at the PTO will not be resolved by changes in patent law. (See “Patent Reform–A Tax on Innovation?” and “Let the Patent Office Keep Its Money.“)
While probably not solving the problems it allegedly fixes, the America Invents Act clearly raises a host of new problems that may lead to unpredictable results in costly litigation for years to come. The radical changes involving who gets patents and what is prior art use confusing language that strips the bill of the “certainty” that its proponents allegedly sought to restore in the system. See excellent reviews of the controversies in these sources:
- Joshua D. Sarnoff, “Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act,” 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal, http://www.patentlyo.com/files/sarnoff.2011.derivation.pdf.
- Eric Guttag, “Some More Heretical Thoughts on Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents Act,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 5, 2011.
- Gene Quinn, “Prior Art Under America Invents: The USPTO Explains First to File,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 4, 2011.
Harold C. Wegner of the respect form Foley and Lardner has published an analysis of the law (3rd edition, Sept. 29, 2011) which highlights its pervasive ambiguity due to poor drafting. This is a serious issue which will cloud patent law and hinder the quest for patent rights for years to come. Wegner also rules that the new law may increase backlogs because appeal judges will have to continue dealing with their heavy load of existing cases as well as take on added cases of “post-grant reviews” and other new administrative procedures (supplemental examination and transitional examination of business method patents) which are provided in the new law. The backlog is sure to increase and fees will be raised even more to cope. Meanwhile, the new post-grant review process has “dractonian” elements, as Wegner observes, that may further impede the ability of an inventor with a real invention to obtain a patent. Further, there are numerous details Wegner identifies in his 177-page text showing potential harm to “upstream” entities like universities and small inventors while benefiting those downstream entities that want to use the innovations of others for their business as cheaply as possible. I smell innovation fatigue.
In my view, the bill reflects fundamental ignorance about the nature of invention. The perplexing provisions on prior art highlight this. Years of litigation that will be needed to clarify what on earth is meant by the new prior art provisions as patent professionals already express exasperation over issues of derivation, inventorship, and prior art in the new law.
A crucial part of the ignorance here is on the nature of invention itself, amplifying the confusion created by the judiciary regarding what is patentable. Viewing business methods and software as somehow being non-technical, in spite of typically involving highly technical systems and tools, opens many cans of worms. If something is novel, useful, and non-obvious, why should it not be patentable if it involves computers and electronic data? But the judicial backlash against vaguely defined “business method patents” has been institutionalized in this new law, where business method patents dealing with the financial services industry (thank you, Wall Street lobbyists) have been given special treatment, allowing Wall Street to have a special route to invalidate patents that otherwise have survived basic prosecution, reexamination, and prior litigation. Section 18 of the law describes how those being sued by a “covered business method patent” can have a special hearing to invalidate the patent. That section includes this gem to define that key term:
(d) DEFINITION.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–For purposes of this section, the term “covered business method patent” means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.
(2) REGULATIONS.–To assist in implementing the transitional proceeding authorized by this subsection, the Director shall issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.
The drafters of this law apparently view “business method” inventions as distinct from “technological inventions.” If science were to rule, it would be clear that one cannot clearly distinguish between “technological inventions” and a claim involving data processing or management of a financial product or service when technology is involved. Why is a new use of a computer to advance financial services not “technological”? Why is it a less worthy invention than a new use of a polymer or of amide chemistry or of coherent photons? This probably relates to the non-scientific but widely held view among judges and politicians that information, data, and electronic signals are somehow not part of the physical universe and should be viewed as abstractions rather than concrete entities that relate to physical measures such as entropy and require tangible matter and real energy to manipulate. Note that “technological” is undefined, perhaps because it cannot reasonably be defined in this unreasonable provision of an fatigue-generating law. I wish the best of luck to the Director of the PTO in clarifying this opaque miasma.
The richest innovations transforming our era involve inventions rooted in the processing and manipulation of information and these innovations must be encouraged and rewarded, not excluded from patent coverage because some failing but well-connected ‘too big to fail” entities don’t want patents from others to stand in their uncreative way. The AIA clearly shows the power of those Wall Street entities in guiding legislation and giving them special breaks, breaks that will do anything but strengthen innovation. Like much of the rest of the law, it’s directed at fixing the wrong things in the wrong way. May wiser heads quickly repeal or massively revise this legislation before backlogs explode and innovation fatigue is further spread across the US system.
Meanwhile, from my vantage point in Shanghai, I see China increasingly strengthening incentives for innovation and strengthening patent rights. This bodes well for the competitiveness of China in the future. America will soon be wondering how to catch up. How about some real patent reform down the road?
For a rather optimistic but definitely helpful overview of the impact of the AIA on patent practice, see PLI’s page, “America Invents Act: How the New Law Impacts Your Clients and Your Patent Practice.”
One of the biggest problems from economies directed by bureaucrats rather than a free market is that the bureaucrats don’t just spend money on foolish areas that don’t make sense economically, but their diversion of funds causes money to dry up where it is needed. Thus the housing bubble, created by government intervention and waste, resulted in billions of dollars being lost for unnecessary home building when it could have been helping small business grow. When government creates artificial markets and bubbles that are sure to pop, there is a lot of hidden carnage in addition to the obvious disasters one sees down the road. A top victim of bureaucratic excess and meddling in the economy is innovation.
Right now, for example, the government continues to direct billions into solar energy in the name of advancing innovation, while simultaneously increasing the cost of patent protection for all innovators by about 15% due to the harmful new patent legislation that was just signed into law. Government interventions in the field of energy are often likewise tailored to increase the cost of energy to consumers in order to achieve political objectives that make little economic sense. We have not yet learned from the Solyndra scandal but continue to misdirect billions into areas with simply no hope of being economically competitive. The problem, again, is not just that those projects will fail. The deeper problem is that the innovators who really could make a difference are less likely to gain access to capital and less likely to be noticed in the market because of the artificial barriers they will face. The market is being skewed and real innovation by real entrepreneurs, the kind of innovation that can succeed and make economic sense, is likely to suffer as a result.
One of the mysteries of the current economy is why so little capital is going into business investment now in spite of all the billions being dumped into the economy. Part of the problem is that the artificially low interest rates being set by the Fed create an easy, low-risk way for banks to make money at our expense. They can borrow money from the government for almost free and then simply buy treasuries to collect the interest. When a risk-free cash cow is created this way, why should they want to make money the risky, market-based way by investing in businesses that can fail? But this cash cow distorts the economy and makes innovation more difficult in the long run. Innovation fatigue.
Want less innovation fatigue? Let’s not pretend that bureaucrats in DC know which innovations deserve billions of dollars. Let the market decide. And ditto for interest rates. Get the Fed out of that equation and let the market set the cost of money.
Why Smart Startups File Patents
By · CommentsStartup companies, unlike our “too big to fail” banks, can’t afford to make too many Enormous Mistakes without perishing or losing much of their value. One of the Enormous Mistakes that some startups make is neglecting intellectual property. That includes neglecting opportunities to protect their business, as well as the need to make sure they aren’t infringing other patents. These are separate issues and require separate efforts and tools. Some of the common mistakes and misconceptions of startups regarding IP are addressed in the slideshow presentation below, “What Do Startups Need to Know about Patent Law” by Jeffrey Schox.
An important point that Schox makes is that reasons smart startups file patents aren’t necessarily because they expect to license their technology or successfully sue a competitor. But having an issued or pending patent with some degree of quality is essential for attracting investor support. Investors typically expect a startup (in many fields, at least) to have IP that can be of value to the business for many years to come and can help limit the harm of competitive copying. Without that in place, that startup is much less likely to get the funds needed to thrive.
Patents play different roles at different stages in the life of a company. But neglecting IP at any stage is an Enormous Mistake that can lead to extinction.