“BROOKINGS Event, Dec 13, 2017”
“The recent slowdown in productivity growth has led to a renewed focus on policies that can support or interfere with Technological progress and innovation. Researchers who study the rules governing intellectual property have become concerned that the current system functions poorly, often impeding innovation rather than promoting it. At the same time, inefficiencies in the research and development pipeline have unnecessarily limited innovation.”
Patent Coalition Call (Every Week)
An all-star roster of patent advocates sharing different backgrounds and congressional aims participate in a pro-patent conference call every week. During this week’s call, the widely circulated Brookings Institution event invitation excerpted above was discussed at length. The event marks the official release of a Brookings Institute Report suggesting dangerous operational revisions at the PTO. The invitation began with the paragraph excerpted above.
As call participants discussed the event, it turns out some had participated in discussions of the Report’s early drafts long before its release and publication on Wednesday of this week. They were consulted but outnumbered. Their advice regarding the Report was ignored. Erstwhile patent advocate Ron Katznelson was consulted. After the call, he circulated a letter debunking the Report and explaining precisely why it was both misguided and harmful for early stage patent dependent entities. Here is how Ron’s letter opened. “This report is not only a one-sided proposal – it is a pernicious blueprint for killing the patent system using stale counterfactual rationales that have long been debunked.”
He closed his blast email by urging the group to attend the event so that its presentation would not be so one-sided. The event will be attended by the press.
Ron’s letter drew a confirming response from Brian O’Shaughnessy Esq., the Licensing Executives Society’s Immediate Past President. Brian was one of the DC patent and PTO experts asked to review an early draft of the Report. He shared Ron’s disappointment with the Report. Explaining what happened at the advance review session, he described how he had offered sound dissenting views that apparently fell on deaf ears. Here is how Brian’s detailed letter summarizing the advance meeting began:
“I was invited to attend a special roundtable session of the Hamilton Project at Brookings a few months ago wherein Frakes & Wasserman presented an early draft of this proposal for modifying the patent system to minimize issuance of invalid patents. The purpose was to get the comment from various experts in the community. Regrettably, however, the invited review panel was notable for the absence of IP owners outside the efficient-infringer community (no life sciences representation at all); and there were very few unaligned IP practitioners having substantial real-world experience.” Continue reading The Patent War Persists