The Horrible Patent Bill

Recently, both houses of Congress passed the America Invents Act.  It is not yet law, because at least one member of the Senate has put a hold on it, and because there are differences between the House & Senate versions.  With luck, the versions won't be reconcilable, or other Senators will pile on with their holds, and the whole thing will die a well-deserved death.

As an inventor, this bill is of considerable interest to me.  Unfortunately, it is the work product of narrow corporate interests who have influenced the bill to the detriment of independent inventors.  That's important because in case you don't know, independent inventors are the source of most truly revolutionary inventions (corporations focus on evolutionary ones).

Some of the aspects of this bad bill are:

1. Conversion to a 'First-to-File' (FTF) system from the current 'First-to-Invent' system.  This means that the first person to file for a patent application will be considered the true inventor, instead of the first person to conceive of the invention.  This might not seem a big change, but put yourself in the place of the independent inventor with limited resources competing against MegaCorp.  You invented it first, but they filed first.  They get the patent.  How fair is that?
You might ask, why would Congress even consider a change like that?  One reason is that Corporations like it. The second is that Congress wants to bring our intellectual property laws into 'harmonization' with those of other countries, all of whom use FTF.  This might make sense except that the rights of inventors is specifically mentioned in our Constitution, not 'first to filers'.  This clause probably will be overturned by the Supremes, anyway.

2. Stealing fees.  Some years ago, Congress decided that the Patent Office needed to be self-supporting.  Overnight, the fees increased substantially, to the point that government fees alone are now well in excess of $1,000 for a utility patent.  Unfortunately, every year, Congress diverts (i.e. steals) some of that fee income to other purposes.  As a result, the Patent Office does not have the resources to hire enough examiners to cut pendency time below the current three years.  This is one difference between the Senate and House versions.  The Senate version says "thou shall not steal", whereas the House want to maintain fiscal control and dole out whatever funds they deem necessary.

3. Overturning Business Method Patents.
Some years ago, in a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that business methods should be patentable.  Previously, they had been specifically excluded.  This opened the flood gates for a whole new category, right at the time when the internet revolution had begun.  One result is that methods were patented that many of the users of the technology such as banks needed to use, and they began to pay significant royalties to the inventors.  The banks didn't like that, and through their lobbying, they had a clause inserted in the bill that allowed for 'post-grant reexamination' of just that kind of patent.
Now, one can dispute whether it was a good idea to allow patentability of business methods in the first place, but once granted and having survived Patent Office and court challenges, this clause would now allow for another route for the users to escape paying royalties.   

All in all, this is a really bad bill, and I hope it will never see the light of day.

When will sanity return to Congress?

Some Dems say they won't sign on to any agreement that touches Social Security or Medicare.  The Tea Partiers loudly declare their commitment to not supporting any bill that raises taxes.  Neither will publicly give an inch.  Stalemate.

The man in the street understands intuitively what will happen when the federal government fails to pay its bills.  If we don't pay our personal bills, then the next time we needs a loan, the rate will go up.   It's the same with Uncle Sam.  We understand that.  The polls show it.

Ours is not a form of government where one party alone determines what happens.  Compromise has worked well up until now.  Where are the adults in this matter?  Where?

Michelle Bachmann's submission to husband & to the bible.

It worries me that voters would even consider a candidate like Michelle Bachmann for high office.

It's not that she is a Tea Party promoter; there are probably other in the movement that, while misinformed about how the Federal government works, at least are trying to do a good job as they see it.

But how can anyone support a modern woman who agrees with the Biblical command for her to be submissive to her husband in all things.  And then, her husband's clinic practices reparative therapy, where gay people are attempted to be cured of their homosexuality, as if it were a disease or lifestyle choice.

We have seen the corrosive effect of a non-elected individual in the person of Grover Norquist, who has gotten many conservatives to sign a no-tax pledge, and then promises to use that fact against them if they vote in a way he doesn't think they should.  The whole idea of pledges of any kind in Congress makes it difficult to govern, when compromises are so often necessary.

In the case of Michelle Bachmann, she would have her non-elected husband whispering in her ear, and well as her understanding of biblical imperatives.  How can that be a good thing in our complex, multi-religious society?  We are not a Christian nation.  Never were.

How to encourage companies to spend their cash for new hires.

News reports tell us that Corporations are sitting on lots of cash, and if only they hired people, the recession would be over.  So why don't they?  They say that it's the uncertainty of tax policies, blah, blah, blah.

Economists point out that the cost of equipment is dropping, whereas with employees, the costs are rising.  So if you were a businessperson, which would you do?  You'd buy the new computer/bulldozer/truck or microscope.

Princeton Prof. Alan Blinder points out that one way to deal with this problem is to allow companies a tax credit equivalent to the salary of every new person they hire.

But that idea hasn't gotten much traction in Congress because prospective employees don't have as much clout as corporate lobbyists who promote the benefits to companies of tax writeoffs for equipment purchases.

How to make tax increases palatable to conservatives.

House Republicans make the point that in principle, they don't like tax increases at any time, but during a recession would be counter productive.  Actually, there is ample evidence from past recessions that the exact opposite is the case, that tax increases at those times help boost employment.  But let's go along with their assertion for the moment.

So, why not a grand deal that includes expenditure cuts, but takes them at their word, and postpones the implementation of revenue enhancements until the GDP increases by some agreed-upon amount or a specific time has passed.

That would let us see if they're serious about it or not.  I doubt if they would agree to any revenue enhancement by any means.

Don't cut my program!

The intransigence of the newly-minted Tea Partiers on the matter of  increasing revenue by any means and the proposing of draconian cuts in discretionary spending is disheartening, particularly when Republican economists lecture them on the disaster that will be caused if the Feds default on payments and they disdain the prediction.

If the worst happens, and default occurs, it seems to me that the Republicans will suffer mightily in the next election, including the few moderates who are left and the new Turks.  Recent polls show that the general electorate are perfectly willing to assign blame to the party as a whole.  Could a complete reversal of the House control be in the cards?  

Tax and Spend Liberals?

During the Bush years, the expression "Tax & Spend Liberals" was tossed around with glee when referring to any proposal by liberals to spend money on anything.

But think back to the proposals that Bush supported, like the Iraq War, unfunded Medicare drug plans and many more.  Those weren't Tax and Spend, they were funded by Borrow & Spend.

Given the choice, which we weren't, the idea of Borrow & Spend is economically much worse than Tax & Spend and has led us to our current economic crisis.

If a program is supported by tax revenues and later is canceled, the taxes can go away, too.  But if the program is supported by borrowing, the effects can last for generations.

Dems accede labels to conservatives.

Have you noticed that the Conservatives have become very adept at using labels with negative connotations when referring to ideas proposed by liberals or to liberals themselves?

They have been so successful at this tactic that liberals have even changed their name to Progressives.

So, what's wrong with the label "Liberals"?  Here's what Webster has to say about it:

Liberal: Broad-minded, not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or traditional forms."

And what about conservativism?:

A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions..."

In other words, liberals are willing to try new ideas, and conservatives are stuck in the old ways.  Hmmm!

NASA fInally closes out manned space flight (Whimper).

With great fanfare, NASA finally closed out its manned space program.

After spending untold billions on something that could be simply characterized as a jobs program (in that regard, NASA learned its lessons well from the Defense Department), there is very little to show for it, except some neat engineering to help get men to space and support them for a while while there.  But to what end?

Most scientists enthusiastically support the unmanned space effort, since there are so many useful things to learn.  The familiar Hubble Telescope and Mars Rovers are only two projects on a long list of great achievements.

The idea of going to Mars may be exciting to the general public, in the same way that going to the Moon did decades ago.  But those in the know realize that it would make the expenditures and danger of any previous manned space project look like child's play.

Why can't Congress realize that spending money on manned space programs is wasteful, even if it brings money to their district.  The money could be put to much better use in scientifically-oriented space programs.