Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public Patent Foundation's Missi...
Google Tech TalksAugust 6, 2008ABSTRACTMany patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") are undeserved. They are granted for several reasons, including that the PTO is not aware of significant prior art (knowledge already in the public domain), that the PTO's employees are not given sufficient time and resources to do an effective screening of patent applications and that the rules regarding how patents are granted are skewed through perverse patent policy to favor the granting of patents. Undeserved patents injure the public because they can be used by private actors to preclude activity that would otherwise be permissible, if not desirable. This causes prices for goods to be artificially high, the advancement of science to be thwarted, and civil liberties to be inappropriately restrained.The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services organization whose mission is to represent the public interest against the harms caused by errors in the patent system, and particularly the harms caused by undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. PUBPAT provides the general public and specific persons or entities otherwise deprived of access to the system governing patents with representation, advocacy and education. In this Google Tech Talk, PUBPAT's Founder and Executive Director, Mr. Daniel B. Ravicher, will discuss PUBPAT's mission in greater detail and describe the specific activities PUBPAT undertakes to accomplish that mission.Speaker: Daniel B. RavicherDaniel B. Ravicher is Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") and a Lecturer in Law and Associate Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Prior to founding PUBPAT, Mr. Ravicher was associated with the patent law practice groups of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher&Flom LLP, Brobeck, Phleger&Harrison, LLP, and Patterson, Belknap, Webb&Tyler, LLP, all in New York, and served the Honorable Randall R. Rader, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. Mr. Ravicher is a registered patent attorney and he writes and speaks frequently on patent law, including testifying before the U.S. Congress on the topic of patent reform. As a result of his accomplishments and professional reputation, IP Law&Business magazine included Mr. Ravicher on its 'Top 50 Under 45' list for 2008. Mr. Ravicher received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was the Franklin O'Blechman Scholar of his class, a Mortimer Caplin Public Service award recipient and an Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, and his bachelors degree in materials science magna cum laude with University Honors from the University of South Florida.This Google Tech Talk was hosted by Boris Debic.
Nobody ever bothers to ask big pharma why it costs them so much time and money. I understand that it's a complicated matter but, it's not that complicated. Because of patents, they have every incentive to exaggerate the costs and to delay new drugs so they can gouge people. Without patents, I think the market would separate drug research from drug production. We'd see lots of drug producers donating to colleges and universities for all the major R&D which would then become public knowledge.
Molo9000(April 24, 2009 at 8:38 am)
This works with software, because developing software doesn't take a big investment and because distributing software costs next to nothing.But how would this work with pharmaceutical products? It takes years and years of development and testing before u can put a new drug on the market.If other companies can just copy the drug, they have a huge advantage over the one that sunk all the R&D costs into the project.
Piscivorus(April 23, 2009 at 12:45 am)
Everyone would. The only difference is that it wouldn't cost millions of dollars. Take the case of open source software. Tons of open source operating systems and applications for every purpose and platform and they all include their own source code so that anyone can change and extend them. The "R&D" comes from millions of small contributors whose collective efforts is greater than all corporate software R&D combined and it's practically free. That's how everything would be without patents.
Molo9000(April 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm)
Who's going to invest millions and millions of dollars into R&D if other companies can just copy the results?Patents are probably misued a lot, but they are needed.
ZerqTM(April 22, 2009 at 5:08 am)
genetic data is not patentable! thats absurd!Mother nature is inherently open source!(otherwise we shouldent be backwards engeneering it! evolution could sue us!)also sciense is harmed by patentsand anyway big pharmasuticals dont inovate all they do is pain relife no cures!cured patiens dont bring in money its better to let them suffer and antestetise them to death.
Piscivorus(February 5, 2009 at 2:47 am)
Abolish the patent system completely. There is no good reason for it.
chihchun(December 29, 2008 at 3:21 pm)
Is the slide available for download?
neoncowgirl1982(November 29, 2008 at 2:14 am)
Always a pleasure getting to see you, Mr. Ravicher.
GoodScienceForYou(November 27, 2008 at 7:37 pm)
There is no evidence of evolution of mankind from any other species. It is easy to prove.Check out my vids. I have studied this for over 40 years. I have no religion and I certainly never want to be indoctrinated by some idiot named Ken. Do your own thinking. Don't be the clone of someone elses thought process and beliefs.
veers0r(October 24, 2008 at 8:32 pm)
Great talk.
twdarkflame(October 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm)
Its pretty simerla in europe, much the same problems/benifits.
twdarkflame(October 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm)
Patents should not apply unless the company holding it has a product on the market, that simple.(ok, maybe give the company a year or something. But if it isnt avaiable for a reasonable price, the patent, or copyright, shouldnt apply)