 |
VOOZH | about |
|
VOOZH | about |
Despite widespread beliefs to the contrary, patents are not a measure of innovation, nor are they needed for companies to thrive — something even Elon Musk understands. But one aspect of patents that is rarely considered is their morality. The European Patent Office’s Board of Appeal wrestled with this issue in an interesting case involving the plant extract simalikalactone E and its use to treat malaria. As the patent admits: “simalikalactone E (SkE) was isolated from Quassia amara (Simaroubaceae), a medicinal plant widely used in the Amazon for the treatment of malaria.” In other words, the use of the plant extract to treat malaria was already known among Amazonian peoples, who naturally did not try to patent it. Related to this, an objection was raised to the patent, on the grounds that it was contrary to “morality”, as defined by Article 53 of the European Patent Convention:
European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
(a) inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to “ordre public” or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States;
The IPKat has a good explanation of the reasoning behind the objection:
the Opponent argued that the invention represented “biopiracy” on behalf of the patentee against the indigenous people involved in the original research. Specifically, the Opponent submitted that the interactions with the indigenous communities had been conducted in an immoral fashion, involving deception and an abuse of trust. According to the Opponent, the members of the communities involved had not been fully and transparently informed of the nature of the research project, its objectives, the filing of the patent, and other risks and benefits of the project to community members and their knowledge. As such, the Opponent argued, the IP rights of the communities over their traditional knowledge had been violated. The Opponent submitted that the deception and breach of trust displayed was contrary to ordre public and would jeopardize relations between indigenous and local communities and researchers.
However, the EPO’s Board of Appeal rejected this argument for an interesting reason:
The exclusion to patentability provided for in Article 53(a) EPC requires the stated offense to morality to reside in the “commercial exploitation” of the claimed invention. The claims of the patent were directed to the formula of the antimalarial, a process of manufacturing the antimalarial and its use in therapy. Given the dire need for effective antimalarial medication, the Board of Appeal found that the commercial exploitation of these inventions would not be contrary to public morality (on the contrary, they would be beneficial to society). Specifically, the Board of Appeal made a clear distinction between the morality of the commercial exploitation of an invention, and the morality of how the invention itself occurred (r.2.14).
That is, patents can be excluded if their commercial exploitation would be immoral, but it doesn’t matter if the way the invention claimed in the patent was made turned out to be immoral. European patent law simply doesn’t care about that aspect. Fortunately, that’s not the end of this particular story, as the IPKat post explains:
Questions over the morality of scientific discovery must therefore be dealt with in a different forum than the patent office. In this case, despite the decision of the Board of Appeal, the European patent in question appears to have lapsed on all member states due to failure to pay renewal fees. The US case has similarly been abandoned. It thus appears that the substantial political pressures on the [patent-holder, the French Institute for Development Research] outside the patent system have impacted their desire and/or ability to commercialise the invention.
It’s good that this kind of pressure works, but it would be better if the patent world cared more about the morality of inventors’ actions in the first place.
Follow me @glynmoody on Bluesky and on Mastodon.
Filed Under: antimalarial, biopiracy, elon musk, epo, european patent office, exploitation, france, innovation, inventors, malaria, morality, pressure
There are plenty of issues with the patent system as we know it today, but one big one is with the system we use to award them. It’s a problem because the more important we think patents are, the more important it is to ensure that the mechanism we use to grant them is capable of recognizing all the invention patent law is intended to protect. Unfortunately, however, right now the patent-review system is architected in a way that makes it miss all too many patent-worthy inventions ? including, especially, those inventions invented by women.
The lack of diversity among patent recipients has now caught the attention of a few Senators, who in December wrote to USPTO Director Iancu to express their concern. There may be several reasons for why women inventors are, by and large, not being granted patents, but one conspicuous one that the Senators focused on in their letter is the commensurate lack of women allowed to do the specialized work of filing for patents:
In today?s increasingly competitive global economy, we must leverage the creativity and talents of all Americans?including women, minorities, and people from low-income and other disadvantaged communities?to maintain the United States? place as the world?s leading innovator. The patent system has long played a critical role in fostering American innovation. As you well know, the USPTO faces a significant gender gap among named inventors. According to a 2020 USPTO report, only 12.8% of named patent inventors are women. The USPTO has undertaken laudable efforts in recent years to recognize and start addressing this gender gap. These efforts are good first steps.
However, we fear that the USPTO?s efforts will be undercut by an apparent gender gap among patent practitioners. While recent data on the demographic make-up of the patent bar is not publicly available, studies from 2011 and 2014 suggest women made up as little as 18% of patent agents and patent attorneys with little growth over time. Unless there has been a significant increase in the number of women admitted to the patent bar in the ensuing years, female membership lags far behind the share of women earning degrees in either science, technology, engineering, or math (?STEM?) fields (~36%) or the law (~50%).
Quoting a letter submitted by Eric Goldman and Jess Miers (disclosure: I signed it), the Senators’ letter further explained why the paucity of women in the patent bar may resultingly be limiting the number of women patent recipients:
[A]ccess to women patent prosecutors can increase women?s patenting activity in several ways. Women patent prosecutors can bring extra substantive expertise on goods and services catering to women customers. This expertise can help inventors recognize patentable inventions and better describe them in patent applications. Women patent prosecutors use their unique social networks to cultivate and support women inventors, and they make it easier for women inventors to ?see? themselves in the patent system. Also, women patent prosecutors may develop more effective client relationships with women inventors than would develop with male patent prosecutors. That, in turn, can help women inventors feel comfortable seeking patent prosecution assistance and produce the evidence necessary to succeed with their patent applications.
In other words, if you want to patent more inventions, and to make sure women’s inventions are among them, you are going to need more women able to help inventors (including those women inventors) obtain their patents. And right now they are being kept out the profession at arbitrarily high rates and for, as the letter also explained, equally arbitrary, if not outright absurd, reasons.
For those confused by some of the vernacular being used here, the “patent bar” is a fancy way of describing the legal professionals allowed to help inventors try to obtain patent grants from the USPTO. The fancy name for this activity is “patent prosecution” and those who do it are “patent prosecutors.” Patent prosecutors don’t necessarily have to be lawyers able to practice in any other jurisdiction, and most lawyers are not permitted to do the specialized work of patent prosecution. Instead, to be allowed to prosecute patents you need to take, and pass, a separate exam to be able to join the patent bar. It is that exam that is at the heart of the problem.
The problem, however, isn’t necessarily with the exam itself. The real issue is that only certain people are eligible to sit for it, and these limitations on exam eligibility are unduly limiting the patent bar by pointlessly excluding otherwise qualified people, including, especially, women:
The USPTO sets the requirements for patent practitioners and, as such, serves as a gatekeeper to the patent bar. To ensure a high level of patent quality, it requires that all candidates pass a six-hour, 100-question exam in order to practice before the USPTO. However, this exam is not open to all. It is reserved for those who possess certain ?scientific? and ?technical? qualifications. Currently, the USPTO allows college graduates with degrees in only thirty-two specific majors to automatically qualify to sit for the exam (so-called ?Category A?). This list includes a wide array of majors in engineering and the physical sciences?degrees that disproportionately go to men. However, it excludes several other majors, such as mathematics, that are highly relevant to modern-day innovation and are earned by women at a rate much closer to their share of overall undergraduate degrees. The list also excludes students who major in industrial and fashion design?fields highly relevant to design patents and for which women make up a majority of students.
True, sometimes those who are not automatically allowed to sit for the exam still can establish their eligibility in other ways, but these rules are even more Byzantine, and the result is still the same: the doors to the profession end up pointlessly closed to people capable of passing the exam and doing the work of patent prosecution. And this limitation on patent prosecutors thus has an echo effect on patent diversity, because it means that only a small subset of patentable inventions are ever likely to be successfully prosecuted.
These exam-eligibility rules therefore need to be reconsidered, the Senators told the USPTO. And to make sure the USPTO takes the matter seriously, the Senators also required it to provide answers to additional questions on the matter, due back to them by January 15.
Filed Under: diversity, inventors, patent bar, sexism, upsto
sciamiko points us to an interesting study done by Stuart Graham, who was the first chief economist of the US Patent Office (we were initially excited about his hiring, though the only other time we reported on his work, it was to wonder why a paper hid his connection to the USPTO), looking at whether or not inventors choose to reveal the “secrets” of their invention prior to actually getting the patent. Graham and his co-author, Deepak Hegde, examined what happened after the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) went into effect in 2000. Part of the AIPA was that the USPTO would publish patent applications after 18 months (usually well before the patents were approved or rejected) — rather than only making them public after they were approved. The usual suspects (patent hoarders and self-described “small inventors”) screamed like crazy about how this would completely destroy American innovation, because they’d have to reveal their secrets too early. To try to appease these concerns, the bill included a loophole: patent applications could be kept secret if they didn’t file for foreign patent protection — which was the case for about half of all US patents.
That gave Graham and Hegde a nice dataset to look at, to see who chose to keep their patent applications secret until approval, and who let those applications be revealed. If those who freaked out about the publication requirement were right, it should be clear in the data that, when given the chance, businesses kept their patents secret, and the “secret” patent applications should be worth more than the non-secret ones. The reality? The exact opposite was true. Inventors chose to reveal their patent applications readily, even when they had the option of withholding them, and the more valuable patents tended to be the ones that were revealed:
They examined 1.8 million granted patents filed at the USPTO from 1995 to 2005 and analyzed the disclosure preferences of the inventors. Their analysis found that, among those not seeking foreign protection, about 85 percent of inventors filing a patent since 2000 chose to disclose information about their patents prior to their approval.
“Overwhelmingly, those inventors patenting only in the U.S. are choosing 18 month disclosure,” co-author Hegde said.
And the study appears to show that the complaints and worries of those small inventors about this increased transparency was, in fact, complete bunk:
When the AIPA was passed, one of the biggest complaints was that the publication requirement would hurt U.S. small inventors, but the researchers found that individuals and small companies still opted for disclosure during the study period.
“Small U.S. inventors are not choosing the secrecy route,” Graham said. “When they patent only in the U.S., they are choosing secrecy in only about 15 percent of the cases, not statistically different than the rate among all other types of inventors.”
Another major complaint of the AIPA was that disclosing patent secrets would stop the engine of innovation in the United States and that society would get less meaningful inventions. Contrary to these arguments, the researchers found that patents born out of secrecy were overall less valuable than those that opted for disclosure.
“When we examine indicators of patent value, we find consistent evidence that the least-valuable and least-impactful patents are those that opted for pre-grant secrecy,” Hegde said.
This isn’t particularly surprising to us — as, contrary to the way some think, we’ve pointed out for years that hoarding information tends to limit innovation, while sharing it is likely to lead to greater innovation. Of course, it’s the same “small inventors” who insisted the sky was falling over the AIPA who are now protesting the latest attempt at patent reform, making similar claims about how it will drive down quality and drive inventors out of business. They were totally wrong last time, and it’s likely they’re totally wrong again.
Filed Under: hoarding, innovation, inventors, patents, secrets, sharing, stuart graham
If you read the angry comments we get from self-proclaimed “inventors” whenever we write about patents around here, you might get the impression from them that if you can’t protect your ideas, there’s simply no reason to be an inventor. It looks like Johnny Chung Lee is proving that’s simply not true. Lee has made plenty of cool things, some of which have garnered plenty of attention: from his Poor Man’s Steadycam to his Wii-based interactive whiteboard. But none of his inventions have garnered as much attention as his YouTube video of his headtracking virtual reality system for the Wii, which became a YouTube sensation:
The New York Times now has an article noting all of the ways that Lee has benefited from being so public in revealing all of his inventions. Rather than struggling to get known, he’s well known all over the place. Plenty of companies came calling trying to hire him, leading to a job he wanted at Microsoft. And, even when he’s giving his ideas away for free, he’s making some money on the side. The Poor Man’s Steadycam, for example, is available to purchase, and Lee has made a quarter of a million dollars from it — even though he provides full instructions for anyone who wants to build their own. Patent lawyers may cringe, but it would seem that he’s doing quite well actively giving away his ideas, rather than trying to lock them up with patent protection.
Filed Under: inventions, inventors, johnny chung lee, sharing
For many years, we’ve tried to argue how important it is to understand the difference between innovation and invention. While it may seem like a minor point of semantics, it actually plays quite heavily into the debate over the patent system. Invention is the process of coming up with something new. Innovation is taking that something new and successfully bringing it to market in a way people want. A quote I’ve heard a few times sums it up thusly: “Invention is turning money into ideas. Innovation is turning ideas into money.” If you look at the true history of major breakthroughs, you’ll quickly learn that invention is fairly meaningless — and the important point is the innovation. In fact, if you look at all the “great inventors” championed by American history, you’ll quickly realize that most weren’t great inventors at all, but rather innovators, who later (often through questionable means) took credit as the inventors they never were. Even though those who actually are familiar with the history of these products know this already, it’s still nice to see these false stories of invention getting more exposure.
Last year, there was a book showing how Thomas Edison wasn’t the great inventor he claimed to be. Now, there’s a new book suggesting not only was Alexander Graham Bell not the great inventor many hold him up to be, but the famous story of him rushing to the patent office to beat Elisha Gray’s patent filing by mere hours may hide the fact that Bell actually cheated the system with the help of a corrupt patent examiner, who shared Gray’s filing with Bell and then helped make it appear that Bell’s filing came first. While this should raise even more questions about why either man was able to get a patent on an idea that was getting plenty of attention from many sources, and thus should have been considered obvious, it also adds to the list of “great inventors” who really did very little inventing.
The reason this is so important is that a patent system really only makes sense if it’s the invention part that’s important and that invention is basically the pinnacle of advancement in the space. Instead, if it’s innovation that’s more important, and innovation is an ongoing process that is sped along by competition, then there is little reason to have a patent system at all. Those who hold up Edison, Bell, the Wright Brothers and others as examples of why the patent system should exist are pointing to the wrong role models. The more detailed you look at their records you realize that both men cheated — and used the patent system not to help protect “inventions,” but to get monopolies that kept out real competition, slowed down true innovation and built up unfair monopolies they didn’t deserve.
Filed Under: alexander graham bell, elisha gray, history, innovation, inventors, thomas edison
There are some news reports coming out about “small inventors” and “startups” coming out against patent reform, but when you read between the lines, that’s not what’s happening at all. What’s happening is that a few entrepreneurs who have relied heavily on patents as part of their business model are coming out against patent reform. That’s not surprising. After all, this form of government protectionism did help them. However, that does not mean that it’s good for society or promoting innovation overall (which is the purpose of the patent system). There is no single view from startups. If a startup’s business model is going to rely on patents, then obviously they’ll want stronger patent protection. However, plenty of startups these days don’t rely on patent protections, and focus on other types of business models instead. For them, patents are a real worry — because even as they innovate, they always need to be wary of some no-name, no-product company suddenly suing them for actually building a product people want. So, while the press and some lobbyists will spin the press conference as “startups” against patent reform or even (as they’re trying to say) “startups” vs “big tech companies,” it’s really “startups who rely on patents” vs companies who recognize they don’t need patents to innovate.
Filed Under: dean kamen, inventors, patent reform, patents, steve perlman
Read the latest posts:
