Like Lynne Kiesling, I’ll believe this when I see it. The patent system, indeed, the entire system of how intellectual property is “protected” in this country needs a massive overhaul.
Although Congress has long considered the patent system a shambles and has attempted to pass corrective legislation several times in the past, the issue is so sprawling and integral to the U.S. economy that progress has come slowly and in grudging increments. But lawmakers in the current Congress have vowed anew to clean up a system overwhelmed by frivolous patent applications and expensive lawsuits.
Witnesses at Thursday’s hearing painted a bleak picture of that system. Adam Jaffe, a Brandeis University professor and author of a book on the subject, described the system as “out of whack.” Instead of “the engine of innovation,” the patent has become “the sand in the gears,” he said, citing widespread fears of litigation.
BlackBerry users will remember the lawsuit last year that almost shut down their addictive handheld devices, an example Jaffe raised in the hearing. BlackBerry maker Research in Motion settled with patent holder NTP for $612.5 million.
While the above is all true, there are some pretty serious special interests that have a huge stake in seeing the system not change. The problem with the way intellectual property is handled in this country is that it creates monoplies. Creating a state-sanctioned monopoly is usually not a good idea and undertaken lightly. However, not thinking through changes to the system for protecting intellectual property is typical in this country. Take for example the Sonny Bono bill. This bill’s sole purpose was to extend existing protections of various forms of intellectual property. The sole reason for this was to allow the owners of these properties, which interestingly included the late Sonny Bono, to extract additional rents. Any mouthings about promoting more production of intellectual property were nothing but outright lies. After all, the extension applies to things created in the past and we can’t change the past.
My guess is that current patent holders and intellectual property lawyers will form a formidable force that will act against any changes that will either reduce the complexity of the system or jeopardize the monopoly profits of current patent holders. The RIAA provides a pretty good data point supporting this view.
See also, this CNet article for different positions on this issue. My preferred approach would be to develop a system along the lines of that advocated by David Levine and Michelle Boldrin. Their approach is quite radical in that they advocate getting rid of intellectual monopolies entirely.
Since there is no evidence that intellectual monopoly achieves the desired purpose of increasing innovation and creation, it has no benefits. So there is no need for society to balance the benefits against the costs. This leads us to our final conclusion: intellectual property is an unnecessary evil.–link
