USPTO: Entire U.S. Economy Relies on IP

Monday, 30 April, 2012 06:00 Written by Aaron B. Thalwitzer 2 Comments

Last month, the USPTO released a reporttitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus”. Weekend reading material! The report “aims to promote a better understanding of the industries where IP plays a particularly important role.” The report goes on to note that “[t]he entire U.S. economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it.” So they may have gotten a little carried away with themselves — or did they? I defy you to identify an industry that doesn’t produce or use IP. I can’t think of one, though there are industries which are certainly more IP-intensive. According to the report, “75 industries (from among 313 total) [are] IP-intensive.” These IP-intensive industries directly accounted for 18.8 percent of all employment in the U.S. economy, in 2010.

The breakdown is even more interesting. Off the top of my head, I might have guessed that patents would lead the way. Nope. Trademark-intensive industries provided 22.6 million jobs, patent-intensive industries accounted for 3.9 million jobs, and copyright-intensive industries provided 5.1 million jobs (all data 2010). The report states that these industries accounted from “about $5.06 trillion in value added, or 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).” Note the distinction. They’re not saying IP independently added trillions in value; the industries did. But without the protections afforded by IP, would those industries generate so much revenue?

Since many IP-intensive industries are in the manufacturing sector, which has long been on the decline in terms of jobs created (but not productivity), these numbers are actually low, particularly for patent-intensive industries. Another surprise to me was that “[w]hile trademark-intensive industry employment had edged down 2.3 percent . . . copyright-intensive industries [grew] by 46.3 percent between 1990 and 2011.” Another fun fact for you to ponder this Monday morning.

Not surprisingly, IP has been recovering from the Great Recession at a higher rate than non-IP intensive industries. “[B]etween 2010 and 2011, the economic recovery led to a 1.6 percent increase in direct employment in IP-intensive industries, faster than the 1.0 percent growth in non-IP-intensive industries. Growth in copyright-intensive industries (2.4 percent), patent-intensive industries (2.3 percent), and trademark-intensive industries (1.1 percent) all outpaced gains in non-IP-intensive industries.”

Furthermore, these are good jobs, on average 42 percent higher than the average weekly wages in other (non-IP-intensive) private industries. And the discrepancy is growing, having “nearly doubled from 22 percent in 1990 to 42 percent by 2010.” Much of this corresponds to the fact that these workers are better educated than their non-IP counterparts.

Importantly, merchandise exports of IP-intensive industries accounted for 60.7 percent of total U.S. merchandise exports. The U.S. doesn’t manufacture goods, it manufactures innovation (I should be in marketing).

The report sums up the importance of IP. It’s an ideal, and hopefully one which the USPTO and Congress will seek to facilitate:

One important way to help encourage innovation is through the protection of intellectual property (IP). The investments necessary to develop IP are often quite substantial. Firms and individuals, in order to invest the necessary resources, need some assurance that they will benefit from and recover the costs of the creation of intellectual property. IP rights help protect authors, inventors, and merchants of goods and services from having their creations and innovations quickly and easily exploited by other firms or individuals, diminishing the benefits to the inventor of the IP. This reduction in private benefits to be gained from the underlying innovation could, in turn, reduce the incentives to undertake the investments necessary to develop the IP in the first place.

Here, here!

Patent Grabs Continue – Why?

Thursday, 12 April, 2012 06:00 Written by Dan Pierron 0 Comments

The latest major acquisition of patents by a big computer software corporation has been agreed to between AOL and Microsoft. The sticker price this time: $1.06 billion. The purchase includes more than 800 patents, putting the per-patent price north of $1 million. On the heels of purchases by Google, buying Motorola Mobility and its attending intellectual property, and the Nortel portfolio sale, major corporations continue building their IP war chests. More than this, they are doing so largely by raiding the portfolios of other large companies that are either distressed or worse. If it has its way, Kodak will be the next big seller. The question becomes: to what end?

In the battle between tech giants, the power afforded by a patent potentially allows the owner to prevent the manufacture, import, or sale of products that infringe the invention described in the patent. Scale this power by the thousands of patents owned by companies like Google and Apple, and the opportunity to hobble a competitor is manifest. Hence, tech companies are tripping over themselves to amass greater and greater numbers of patents in the areas of electronics, software, and, as in the case between AOL and Microsoft, advertising. Given the numbers of patents owned by the major players, and the complexity of a given product, it’s a safe working assumption to say that every major product released by the likes of Apple, Goole, Microsoft and others of that ilk infringe on at least one patent owned by a competitor.

So what is keeping patent owners at bay, permitting infringing products to enter the market? Essentially, mutually-assured destruction. Given an increasing number of patents owned by a given competitor, the probability of that competitor owning a product that one or more of your products infringes approaches 1. If one tries to assert patent rights, that will in turn spur a counter-assertion. This gives rise to a stand-off; although there is potentially much to be gained by excluding a competitor’s product from the marketplace, the consequences of that action could substantially outweigh the benefits.

Continuing the Cold War allusion, patent acquisitions like those mentioned above are tantamount to an arms race between nations. Nobody wants to be left behind, so everyone commits more and more resources to protection. Consortiums are even arising, akin to treaty organizations, to the chagrin of those that are excluded. In sum, barring major changes in the philosophy in the business practices driving the tech industry, the one with the biggest patent portfolio looks to be king of the hill.

Pharmaceutically Speaking: USPTO vs FDA?

Wednesday, 07 March, 2012 06:00 Written by Danie Roy 0 Comments

Danie Roy

Those of you familiar with the Pharmaceutically Speaking series know I’ve written a bit on generics, biologics, and biosimilars before. I’ve also touched a bit on how Patent does not equal FDA approval (and vice versa). Crash course version:

Generics are versions of drugs that have gone off-patent. That is, the patent protection has run out on them, and the active ingredients in the drugs are now free to use. Different inactive ingredients must be used, and your generic must be approved by the FDA to be within a comparable effectiveness range of the original. Biologics are pretty close to what they sound like: medicine produced biologically rather than chemically. Biosimilars are the generics of biologics.

Of course, biosimilars are a little more complex than that, for the same reason organisms are more complex than chemicals. For some more in-depth reading, the links above have a good bit of information buried in them. Right now, I’m going to explain why the US biosimilar approval process seems to be putting standards from the USPTO and FDA at odds.

See, with what we think of as generics, the chemically-based drugs, they’re pretty much interchangeable. Some people may react differently to inactive ingredients, but such cases are few and far between. Very little research is required to prove that Drug X will do the same thing as Drug Y because they both have Chemical Z. Drug X might just have Filler A while Drug Y might have Filler B. With biologics, the process is a little harder to prove.

As I’ve said before, biologics, by nature, are more complex than traditional drugs. They come from individual cell or protein lines, and the tiniest difference, even an imperceptible one, could be the difference between life and death. In order for a biologic to have an interchangeable biosimilar, significantly more testing has to be done to prove that switching back and forth between the drugs will have no effect. Add to this that biologics need time to build up in your system to truly work as intended, and the research gets expensive fast. Plus, the interchangeable guidelines as set by the FDA require sharing how all the biosimilars were made to the makers of the original biologics… which is bound to cause IP disputes. And, without the interchangeable label, you still need a separate prescription for the biosimilar.

Assuming that the kinks all get worked out and we do get interchangeable biosimilars, it could be a very long time before we see those drugs. And even then, we won’t be getting as a big a discount as hoped for… somewhere in the 10-20% range. Remember, keep your fingers crossed, but don’t hold your breath.

SOPA and PIPA vs The Internet: The Epic Copyright Battle

Wednesday, 18 January, 2012 15:40 Written by Danie Roy 2 Comments

Danie Roy

Before we begin, I’d like to make some statements that you may remember from when I discussed embryonic stem cells: this article is largely meant to be informative, although it is very difficult to stay completely unbiased when I am informing you about the opinions of other people. I apologize in advance if my own opinion shines through too brightly, largely because this seems to be an issue that is polarizing people more than stem cells ever could. Add the previous sentence to the list of things I never thought I’d say. Then again, this is the internet.

By now, you’re probably aware that you can’t access Wikipedia or Craigslist as you normally would. You’ve gone to see teh lolcats or hang with your bronies, and you’ve been greeted with a popup begging you to take action. The Google doodle is now a black box. Even the news stations are talking about the sites going down. What’s going on? Just a preview of what could happen if SOPA and PIPA pass in their current forms.

SOPA and PIPA are bills in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, that were intended to stop online piracy from overseas sites like The Pirate Bay. Currently, nobody can touch The Pirate Bay, as evidenced by their response letters (or, as Scott called them, f/u letters). The language of the bills is entirely too broad, however, and reeks slightly of “did not do the research.” For instance, you don’t have to infringe to be taken down, you just need to be capable of infringing: that is, have a comment box, text, links, a link to someone else’s link, etc. And you may be guilty until proven innocent.

These are popping up everywhere today.

I’ll be the first to admit that most people have no idea what’s going on in Congress most of the time. I personally would rather read image file wrappers, watch paint dry, or have a root canal than watch C-SPAN. It’s boring, and in a language called “legalese.” Great for curing insomnia, though.

Before I get too far into this, I’m going to be perfectly clear: I am FOR protecting intellectual property. I’d be an out-of-work hypocrite if I wasn’t; protecting intellectual property is my job as a patent agent. However, I personally believe that SOPA and PIPA can’t protect intellectual property in their current forms.

Here’s why people are protesting and your favorite sites are dark:

A site does not necessarily have to infringe to be taken down. A site that could infringe, in other words, has a comment box, links, or any upload capability, can be targeted.
If you’ve been accused, there is no real defense: you’re assumed guilty until proven innocent, and the bill makes proving yourself innocent extremely difficult. In order to be innocent, your website must not have the functionality to infringe; which of course, all websites have. So, you’re either infringing or you’re perjuring yourself. Take your pick.
Takedowns are incredibly easy to initiate. The RIAA already has a history of using questionably ethical legal tactics to take out legitimate businesses. Imagine what they can do with SOPA and PIPA on their side.
Ever posted anything to any website? YouTube, ICanHasCheezburger?, even Facebook? Yep, you’re a potential target.
Ever used Gmail, Yahoo! mail, or AOL mail? Same deal.
Fair use will be practically considered obsolete… and ignorance will not be a defense.
Anyone working for the government (like our wonderful Congresspeople) is immune from the consequences of violating SOPA and PIPA.
The link I posted to the f/u letters? That could be a violation of SOPA/PIPA, due to The Pirate Bay’s unsavory activities.
Earlier versions (and possibly later versions) allowed for destabilizing the infrastructure of the internet in order to “protect” IP. That is, addresses could be removed from the universal internet lookup system, DNS, which would make site spoofing that much easier… hello viruses and stolen personal info!

To quote a godly entity, you “should pretend like it is a big deal, because it is.” Whether you’re for or against SOPA/PIPA, you really need to speak up about this issue. It affects the internet as we know it, and it affects intellectual property, too. If you’re like me, you’re for protecting intellectual property, but against seriously inhibiting the free flow of the internet.

Wikipedia’s two working English pages: SOPA and PIPA

LA Times: Three congresspeople drop support, including FL Senator Marco Rubio

PCWorld’s rather factual take

Pharmaceutically Speaking: Enbrel is Patented Forever

Friday, 23 December, 2011 23:34 Written by Danie Roy 0 Comments

Danie Roy

Okay, it’s not patented forever, it just FEELS like Enbrel got patented forever. The patent expires in 2028.

To put that in perspective, by the time this patent expires:

We will have gone through 4 Presidential Elections
I will have gone through 8 different phones (assuming 2-year contract deals, and that I don’t utterly destroy them somehow)
Some kid born last year will have graduated high school
Some kid that just started middle school this year will have a PhD
Kids that aren’t even born yet will be driving
We will have heard of no less than 15 new dates on which the world is predicted to end
I will be middle-aged

Okay, I scared myself with that last one. You get the general point, though.

Some of you may recall that I said the Enbrel patent was supposed to expire in October 2012. Well, turns out there’s more than one patent. The infinity and beyond patent was filed back in 1996, which means that it falls under the “17 years from date of issue” rule. So, instead of expiring in 2016 (which it would under the 20 years from filing rule), this patent expires sometime in the flying car future.

Okay, maybe the patent wouldn’t expire in 2016, either. Once we instituted the 20 years from filing rule, we also added this thing called “patent term adjustment”… you could get time added for certain delays. And, really, with a 15 year delay, it’s quite likely that, had the patent been filed after the 20 year rule was instituted, this gem would qualify for SOME patent term adjustment.

Now, if you’re familiar with the Pharmaceutically Speaking series (or pharma IP in general), you may have noticed a dull, aching sensation in your wallet. That’s because this means any possibility of biosimilars for Enbrel is out FOREVER! (Or at least 17 years).

Posts Tagged ‘ip’

USPTO: Entire U.S. Economy Relies on IP

Patent Grabs Continue – Why?

Pharmaceutically Speaking: USPTO vs FDA?

SOPA and PIPA vs The Internet: The Epic Copyright Battle

Pharmaceutically Speaking: Enbrel is Patented Forever

Subscribe

Categories

Archives

Tags

Pages

Login