Innovation from the grassroots up

The news is coming together, and it points to Barack.

Bill Richardson will make history today. His endorsement of Barack Obama will start a cascade of endorsements that will bring the swift end of the Clinton campaign.

Why? Because the professional observers have long believed that there is close to a zero chance that Hillary can win the nomination. She has been battling to undo party rules in Michigan and Florida. This was her last hail Mary attempt to block Barack, and neither is going to happen, as of yesterday. Without them she has essentially no chance of winning the nomination, no matter how well she does in her one remaining stronghold, Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, Barack launched a national dialogue on race–much needed and much desired by leaders of all faiths, colors, and communities. Barack created a leadership moment for our society, turning a crisis of misunderstanding into a national opportunity for honest discussion. By the way, lets give some of the credit to bloggers who engaged in the dialogue early. Once again, bloggers helped open up a topic that otherwise might have festered below the surface.

So now party leaders see that the time has come to unify the Democrats, and none too soon. Bill Richardson is moving for unity today. This is his own very important leadership intervention, perfectly timed. It will be catalytic. Expect others to follow quickly. Expect Hillary to suspend her campaign within days, in the interest of unity.

From a systems point of view, I am almost always interested in situations where executives or government officials lose control by seeking it. The classic now is the Iraq war, where Bush/Cheney thought they could spread democracy across the middle east by focusing on one small autocratic nation, Iraq. The plan was to “seed democracy.” On the other hand, they did not trust the local people. So they worked with the local leaders–some but not all–to create a hybrid of autocracy and democracy. The most autocratic thing of all was the insertion, by war and force, of the United States military into the country.

Of course they could not control the local situation. They think they “underestimated the opposition.” Actually, they deluded themselves about being able to control the situation–or any similar situation.

More important, the mix of autocracy and democracy (invasion and occupation and elections) was so transparently wrong that it turned off both democratic and autocratic leaderes in the nation. And it frightened both democratic and autocratic governments around the region.

Internally, this upset the delicate balance of forces that was keeping the country from melting down. In the region, it wrecked the balance that kept the middle east, if not peaceful and democratic, at least relatively stable.

Finally, by persisting with this plan, the US lost all legitimacy everywhere, and with it the ability to influence anything.

In my own experience this pattern is surprisingly common. Consider situations you are facing.

The answer, as far as I can tell, is that the US must admit its powerlessness to control, and must look beyond itself for answers. It must make allies–and more important take data, analysis and advice, from people and nations outside of the region, outside of its ideological spectrum, and outside of the United States.

1. What scares big companies is disruptive innovaton carried out by individuals and small firms. There are no scale effects in innovation. Bach, Mozart were individuals. Larry Ellison of Oracle famously says that software technology innovation can no longer be accomplished in large companies. This is why Oracle acquires companies right and left. Microsoft spends billions of dollars a year, and only comes up with incremental improvements.

The same is broadly true in other fields. Most biotech innovation happens in universities or small labs. Even Apple, the famous innovator, is highly dependent on small outside design firms, and a few individuals carefully nurtured in the firm, for both look-and-feel and technology innovation.

The US as a whole needs innovation.

The US needs to nurture innovative individuals.

2. The following analysis shows that strong patents are pro-innovation. I have excerpted a small bit, but please click to the full article. From Science magazine.

The author points out that patents of building blocks promoted innovation across history and across industries.

3. This puts to lie the arguments supporting a bill that weakens patent law, currently being pushed by Patrick Leahey of Vermont.

Efforts to weaken patent law come almost entirely from two groups. First, the lobbyists for very large, traditional firms. In information technology, it is the established “gorillas” like IBM, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco. Second, from policy wonks who are funded by the big companies.

These big gorilla techs named above are today’s version of the big auto companies, big plastics companies and big pharma companie, each of which tried to quash patents as they tightened control over their industries.

Big companies dominate their industries by economies of scale, by monopolies and oligopolies on distribution, and on stopping new entrants by “killing the snake while it is small” (or buying the snake when it is mid-sized).

In autos, they succeeded. In plastics and pharma they did not. In materials and in biotech there are vibrant communities of independent think tanks and innovation laboratories that make their living licensing patented inventions to larger firms or directly to the public.

The information technology industry looks more like the early auto company days than it does the early biotech days. This is because small companies in information technology have not figured out the value of their intellectual property, and how to protect it.

Big companies in information technology depend on squashing small companies, buying intellectual property on the cheap from small companies, and buying pioneering companies on the cheap. They can easily do this when the small companies either don’t protect their intellectual property (a problem in many small software companies) or open source their technology in unwise ways. Big companies are now trying to weaken the patent system before the small companies wake up to its value.

Who is taking the money from these big companies to do their bidding? Senator Patrick Leahey of Vermont–for whom John Chambers, CEO of Cisco, held a big fundraiser in Vermont. Why did Chambers, who lives in Silicon Valley, come to Vermont to do a fundraiser. You connect the dots.

Leahey is now aggressively pushing changes to the patent system that make it harder for small companies to succeed, and easier for big companies to triumph.

Leahey has, to put it bluntly, sold out.

He probably figured no one would notice. This is typically how Senators agree to sell out. They pick an issue that is important to a group of wealthy companies, and try to slip changes in unnoticed.

Shame on your Senator Leahey.

BIOTECHNOLOGY: The Patenting of DNA — Doll 280 (5364): 689 — Science
..in the USPTO’s view, new areas of technology do not create the need for a whole new specialized patent law. In many ways, the arguments currently being used for DNA sequence technology resemble those voiced 30 to 40 years ago when polymer chemistry was an emerging technology. At that time, people argued that if broad generic claims were granted on the building blocks of basic polymers, it would devastate the industry. In fact, no such disaster occurred. For example, the issuing in 1965 of a basic patent broadly claiming a vulcanizable copolymer of aliphatic mono-olefins and unsaturated bridged-ring hydrocarbons (3) did not preclude the later issuing of patents to different inventors for several copolymers of this type (4). These patents represent early examples of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) rubbers, which are highly weather- and ozone-resistant, stable to thermal aging, and have good electrical insulating properties. These EPDM rubbers have been commercially important as components in tires, weather stripping, radiator hoses, wire insulation, impact modifiers, and roofing.

EPDM copolymers were assembled from three basic building blocks that could be combined in many different ways and, as such, generic and specific claims to these copolymers are analogous to claims that may be issued to DNA inventions. Just as the issuing of broad product claims at the early stages of this technology did not deter development of other new vulcanizable copolymers, the issuing of relatively broad claims in genomic technology should not deter inventions in genomics. Two relevant examples of this in the field of biotechnology are the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease, which were patented and then widely licensed to permit the biotech industry to continue to grow and benefit from these inventions.

The same patentability analysis is conducted for every patent application, regardless of whether the application is for a computer chip, a mechanical apparatus, a pharmaceutical, or a piece of DNA. In every field of technology–whether emerging, complex, or competitive–all the conditions for patentability (such as statutory subject matter utility, enablement, written description, novelty, and non-obviousness) must be met before a claim is allowed (5).

BIOTECHNOLOGY: The Patenting of DNA — Doll 280 (5364): 689 — Science

…Without the incentive of patents, there would be less investment in DNA research, and scientists might not disclose their new DNA products to the public. Issuance of patents to such products not only results in the dissemination of technological information to the scientific community for use as a basis for further research but also stimulates investment in the research, development, and commercialization of new biologics. It is only with the patenting of DNA technology that some companies, particularly small ones, can raise sufficient venture capital to bring beneficial products to the marketplace or fund further research. A strong U.S. patent system is critical for the continued development and dissemination to the public of information on DNA sequence elements.

To the editor,

I am writing regarding this New York Times article, on patents.

This article conveys the surprising “finding” that for public companies in the United States, patent litigation costs are apparently much higher than previous researchers have documented.  Boston University researchers Bresson and Mauer claim that “Domestic litigation costs alone, meanwhile, soared to $16 billion in 1999 from $8 billion in 1997.”

Is this true? Really? Unfortunately the writer, Michael Fitzgerald, neglects to point out the key assumption that underlies the Bresson and Mauer studies.

Though the arguments are complex, at core the authors assume that the “cost of litigation” is best estimated by the reaction of investors upon reading about the filing of a patent suit in the Wall Street Journal.

Stated more generally, the authors’ argue that if investors discount a stock in response to the announcement of patent litigation, the decline in market cap of the company can be assumed to be a sound estimate of the projected “litigation cost” of the suit. This argument assumes market rationality and the wisdom of crowds to an extreme seldom contemplated by serious analyists of markets.

I kid you not. Here is the astounding argument in the authors’ words:

SSRN-The Private Costs of Patent Litigation by James Bessen, Michael Meurer

Here is the relevant passage:

A key assumption of this literature is that the change in firm value that occurs around a

lawsuit filing reflects investors’ estimates of the direct and indirect effects of the lawsuit on the

profits of the firm and not any unrelated information. We argue below that this is a plausible

assumption for defendants in infringement suits and that, therefore, we may associate the loss in

wealth with the effective total cost of litigation for defendants.

We find that firms lose about half a percentage point of their stock market value upon

being sued for patent infringement. This corresponds to a mean cost of $28.7 million in 1992

dollars (median of $2.9 million), much larger than mean legal fees of about half a million. In

aggregate, infringement risk rose sharply during the late 1990s, reaching 19% of R&D spending.

The authors calculate the cost of patent litigation based principally ON THE AVERAGE DROP IN MARKET CAP OF PUBLIC COMPANIES WHEN A LAWSUIT IS FILED AGAINST THEM. THIS DROP AVERAGES ABOUT 1%. Stock market value for most companies are highly sensitive to perceived negative announcements, and a negative movement of 1% is hardly ever significant or lasting. For investors, trend is usually more meaningful than the sensitivity to perceived events.

Of course, a 1% drop, if assumed to be “real” and more or less irreversable, yields very large dollar amounts for the “cost of patent litigation.”

Most of us, on reading about the cost of patent litigation, would assume this refers to legal fees. However, the authors’ note that in their model the “direct costs of legal fees” are much less than what they argue is the total cost of being accused of patent infringement.

These estimates are clearly much larger than the estimates of direct legal costs. Most of

the cost of litigation to firms appears to arise from business costs such as loss of market share,

management distraction, and increased financial costs from greater risk.

Of course, this is broadly true. But is it right then to estimate this broader cost based on small fluctuations in market value? I think not.

So what is the bottom line? James Bessen and Michael Meurer are taking on the patent system, and promoting their upcoming book.

Would I bet on their academic careers? Sure. In the current climate in academics, and in tech journalism, one can ride “patent reform” pretty far.

Would I ask them to help me invest? No. Would I take their strategic advice on patent strategy? No. Would I rely on them to set policy for innovation in the United States? No.

Google Fights Global Internet Censorship - Forbes.com

Bravo for Google Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs Andrew McLaughlin , our former colleague at Berkman, for pressing censorship as a trade issue.  This is exactly the case.  And from my–and Andrew’s–work on bridging the digital divide between rich and poor countries, barriers to internet participation hurt the poor nations most of all.  Their citizens cannot participate in the global knowledge economy.

Now if we could just press for access to undersea fiber as a global trade issue, I’d be even happier.   Undersea fiber connections are the “deep water ports” of the knowledge economy. Countries like South Africa where big telecom companies tightly control these ports are strikingly disadvantaged.  Small and medium-sized knowledge-based businesses are starved.  And yet these businesses are the types that can spring up in web ecosystems quickly in developing contries.  These are businesses that help their local societies become more efficient.  These businesses can provide needed export services, such as outsourced development.  And these businesses promote the growth of the  political middle class.

Economic research on patent licensing by industry demonstrates a maturity curve. Disputes over intellectual property are comparatively rare in industries where intellectual property ownership has long been accepted, such as semiconductors, electronics, telecommunications and biotechnology. Intellectual property licensing is well-understood and actively pursued among companes. While there is inevitable grumbling about prices, generally-acceptable licensing terms have been established in these industries. Most important, there is a vibrant sub-sector of each of these industries where “invention companies” thrive as part of the ecosystem. I have a loft near MIT on Brookline Street, and all around me are biotech idea companies living happy, comfortable lives tackling hard intellectual problems, developing inventions and intellectual property, and licensing the resulting technology solutions to larger industry players who provide downstream development, testing, marketing and distribution.

By contrast in software intellectual property practices are strikingly immature. This can be hard for outsiders to understand, as there is very little real difference between software inventions and analogous inventions in semiconductors, electronics, telecom and biotech.

Why is the intellectual property ethos so immature in the software industry? Mostly because software as a distinct field was so abstract as to be almost invisible until the 1980s. In the academic engineering world, software started out in applied mathematics and computer science as a field came relatively recently. In business, software was seen as a necessary part of hardware, not as a distinct product or service offering. Indeed, up until the 1980s software was typically given away by hardware companies in order to sell their (big) iron. It took an anti-trust settlement with IBM regarding the IBM 360 mainframe to force IBM to unbundle software from hardware. In the minicomputer days, Sun Microsystems was one of the first companies to see software as the basis for a distinct business–an idea that was considered radical at the time. The layered architecture of the personal computer world finally enabled software companies to form a distinct, free-standing industry.

Software patents became recognized as a distinct, official domain of invention in the United States in the mid-1980s. Telecom patents by contrast went back to the beginning of the century.

In the long history of intellectual property, software in now coming of age.

In the software industry companies large and small continue to underemphasize intellectual property licensing. The rationalized ethos of cross-licensing among companies is barely developed. Instead, firms large and small continue to come to blows on the few propery conflicts that rise to high stakes. A myriad of opportunies for licensing and collaboration on intellectual property development are ignored, and–importantly–infringement is a daily business practice.

Slowly, however, the industry is growing up. IBM sets the right pattern in some ways. IBM has long offered to license pretty much any of its 34,000 owned and 45,000 owned-or-controlled patents for 1% of another company’s “relevant revenue” (i.e. revenue directly attributable to employing the patented intellectual property). IBM typically would offer its entire portfolio for 5% of revenues. For many years, other firms found this deal attractive.

Today IBM will license most of its software intellectual property portfolio for 1% of relevant revenues in total. The thinking seems to be that most firms can expect to be licensing software intellectual property from several others. Thus 5% is probably what a firm can reasonably budget for all of its relevant licenses, so IBM figures 1%, or 1 of 5 points, is about what the market will bear for its contributions. This seems a reasonable assumption to me. In other industries, this percentage is about the norm.

We are also seeing the beginnings of a distinction in the software industry between invention and distribution. IBM, interestingly, is becoming more of a distribution firm (a systems integrator), relying on others’ ideas–while continuing its own lab, as well. Google, on the other hand, appears to be investing heavily in ideas–while developing its distribution platform.

What I think will be a most interesting next development is the rise of smaller, entrepreneurial invention firms in software. I look forward to Brookline Street in Cambridge being lined with small software engineering firms solving the hardest problems on the planet–and partnering with larger firms to take the resulting inventions to the world market.

Digg this story

Regarding Jon Dudas’ testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Commitee, as reported in advance by Steve Lohr in the New York Times yesterday.

Dear Steve,

Unfortunately, I need to take you to task for your article yesterday in the Times about patents.

The creation of inventions and intellectual property is vital to the American economy and the United States’ role in the world economy. For better or worse, America’s economic future depends on creating and licensing intellectual property.Strong worldwide patent rights are the foundation for American economic survival over the next fifty years.

There is a serious lack of balance in your article reporting on the Bush administration’s campaign to change the US patent system.

I hope you will understand that this letter is not a personal attack on you. You are a thoughtful, effective and experienced technology journalist. Over the years I have enjoyed talking with you and reading your pieces in the New York Times. Please consider the following as strong criticism, but intended constructively. I am blogging it because I think the issue is important, and the case requires careful examination.

I. Your article ignores the deep controversy over the Bush administration’s approach to patents. Among experts, especially in the patent bar, there is great frustration with Jon Dudas, the director of patents. Indeed, I am tempted to put “patent reform” in quotation marks when it comes to this administration, just as one is tempted to put “war on terrorism” in quotation marks. No one believes any more that the war on terrorism is uncontroversial, regardless of their point of view.

Unfortunately the Bush “war on patents” is not yet understood by the public. What the administration proposes to do about patents is controversial. That is, whether you agree with the administration or not, there is controversy among experts in innnovation and the law. You article did not report this genuine criticism.

II. To many of us who are students of the situation, the administration is motivated by the economic needs of a few companies, Microsoft and IBM in particular, hope to weaken patent protection and absolve themselves of billions of dollars of potential infringement penalties. In order to help these giant companies accomplish this, the administration and its allies in industry have manufactured a phony “crisis in the patent system.” This crisis simply does not exist.

The proposed fix, which is to make it harder for new players to obtain patents, and to weaken patent protection for existing holders, is clothed in language that makes reform seem to be in the interest of small players and small business. This view, again, is not without controversy. Your readers need your help in questioning this framing, and in making up their own minds about who is served by the proposed changes to the patent system.

The creation of inventions and intellectual property is vital to the American economy and the United States’ role in the world economy. For better or worse, America’s economic future depends on creating and licensing intellectual property. Strong worldwide patent rights are the foundation for American economic survival and leadership over the next fifty years.

III. Without taking up more of your time than is necessary at this point, let me point out an example of one-sided journalism in your latest article. You write, “Both the Senate and the House have introduced patent-reform legislation this year, amid concerns that the current overburdened, litigation-choked system is hampering innovation rather than encouraging it.”

While you are careful to put these words in the mouths of others, “amid concerns,” your colorful language and lack of a articulating the counter points suggests that there is no argument as to the assessment of the state of the system. This is not correct. Whether you agree with them or not, there are strongly differing views about the health of the patent system. Here is a contrasting view to the one you present:

1. The patent system is excellent in America. The US has the best patent system in the world, and is the globe’s leader in innovation. In the view of many and perhaps most scholars in economics, law, and business innovation the patent system is NOT “litigation-choked” but rather is working quite well.

We live in a time when the total number of scientists and engineeers working today is larger than the sum total of all past history. We are approaching what some call a “singularity” in the exponential growth of invention. The progress of progress is itself increasing in rate. Given this, it is not surprising that the patent office is going through growth pains.

On the other hand, the current patent commissioner has embarked on a number of untested initiatives that–as we will see below–may be less motivated by fixing the American patent system than fixing the problems of a few large Republican donors.

Studies show that only a tiny fraction of corporate budgets go toward legal costs associated with patents. In industries where intellectual property has long been respected, such as health and medicine, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, the spread between patent litigation returns and patent licensing returns is very small. To put this more plainly, it is in the interest of patent holders to license their ideas to others, on fair terms, and they do so.

The intellectual property exchange markets work very effectively to provide companies ready access to the inventions they need at a price they can afford. Inventions are licensed efficiently to companies and entrepreneurs by universities, small research-based companies, and among larger firms. The license fees in turn fund university-based and small-company-based creativity on which our country increasingly depends for advances in medicine, information technology, and other sources of international leadership.

2. The patent system works very well in software markets. Indeed, it is helping to tame companies that have been rampant abusers, and it is helping to establish a sub-industry of focused, academically-based small-company computer science research.

Bad behavior on the part of a few big players, in the context of an immature intellectual property market, is what results in the large patent disputes that make the newspapers. The patent system is working to incentivise a higher level of respect for intellectual property rights. This in turn is improving the software industry in America.

Intellectual property exchange markets have difficulty operating in immature intellectual property markets with histories of what might be called “cavalier” abuse of intellectual property rights.

Thus for example Microsoft faces many billions of dollars of unsettled patent infringement claims. Similarly, as IBM has shifted its business model from technology invention to business consulting and technology integration, it has become a vast potential infringer on patents held by others.

Finally, software-oriented venture capitalists have long told their companies to ignore the intellectual property rights of others. Infringement is the direct result of cavalier attitudes toward the rights of others, and of business models that depend upon infringement.

3. The patent system and the courts are helping the software industry mature. The goal is to achieve a healthy, efficient software intellectual property market like we have today in pharmaceuticals, semiconductors. The patent system is doing in software just what it intended to do–to help remedy infringement and drive the industry toward open, efficient licensing. The patent system provides for registered property rights that companies small and large can use to protect the fruits of their labor.

The patent system is the direct analogue of the system of real estate title that makes it possible for investors to buy and sell real estate without fighting over who has title. In the software business there are large players who are accustomed to building on land they don’t own, and they are now having to settle with the true owners of the underlying property. Let us not cry too hard for these previously untamed giants.

IV. Your article does not provide the reader with any background on the players in the story.

The story describes testimony that the director of patent office Jon Dudas plans to make today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

1. The story simply restates approvingly Mr. Dudas’ point of view. Fully eight of twelve paragraphs are constructed of uncriticises quotes from his proposed testimony. By leaving out the context, your piece becomes mainly a presentation of administration views–not far from an Op-Ed one can imagine Mr. Dudas himself writing.

2. What is happening in the Senate? Why is Dudas testifying? What is the politics of this commitee meeting? You provide only one paragraph of twelve on this topic.

You could have pointed out that legislation to change the patent system is being co-sponsored by Senator Orin Hatch. Hatch is well-known for championing legislation that freed the dietary suppliments industry from FDA oversight, advantaging a number of Hatch contributors and allies. And, arguably, setting up the nation for confusion and potential abuse by makers of suppliments.

3. What about the companies? Who is testifying? Who is lobbying? Who is funding the non-profits and think tanks. Companies are THE central participants in this drama. In the recent, and related, case before the US Supreme Court, a number of firms lined up on several sides of the issue. You could look into the strange bedfellows of patent reform, Microsoft and IBM, who are funding the lobbying campaign.

4. Speaking of IBM and Microsoft, you mention with approval, “The patent office is experimenting with the concept of opening the examination process to outsiders, inviting public peer reviews.” You neglect to reveal that this experiment is being funded by IBM, by way of contibutions to Fordham University and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You could have gone farther and detailed the connections among campaign contributions, support of non-profit initiatives, and lobbying by corporate interests in the software industry.

5. You quote only one outside expert, Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School. Josh is a thoughtful person with an important point of view on patents, but he is not independent. Here is a quote from his HBS web site:

“Adam Jaffe and Josh Lerner’s Innovation and Its Discontents is a new book that tells the story of how recent changes in patenting—an institutional process that was created to nurture innovation—have wreaked havoc on innovators, businesses, and economic productivity. Jaffe and Lerner, who have spent the past two decades studying the patent system, show how legal changes initiated in the 1980s converted the system from a stimulator of innovation to a creator of litigation and uncertainty that threatens the innovation process itself.”

Josh is NOT an unbiased objective third party, as you imply. He is a participant in the drama. I think it is fair to say that he is aligned with Mr. Duda, and presses him to go farther. I believe Josh himself would agree that he is a crusader for change.

You rely heavily on Josh as a source, not just in this case, but in other stories. Please consider whether you are perhaps relying overly much on one framing of the issues, if you find Josh neutral.

“steve lohr”+”josh lerner” - Google Search

V. Here for your consideration is an alternative framing of the big picture. The following framing, whether you agree with it or not, is certainly a valid way to construct this complex situation. At the very least, there IS controversy.

A few large companies, rampant infringers, are getting their due and they are upset about it. They are blaming the patent system, and have lobbied the Bush administration for relief. Unfortunately the administration seems willing to throw out a hundred years of settled law in order to help these large donors. A few senators appear to be willing to go along.

This, indeed, is a story!

Thanks much, Steve.

Best,

Jim Moore

Digg this story

Another personal friend of mine worked diligently for years for a well-known billionaire (well-known, among other things, for his admiration for Jimi Hendrix). Many things were invented, patents were filed and are now issuing in my friend’s name.  These patents were assigned to the company, as part of my friend’s employment agreement.
The compensation to my friend was in private, non-liquid stock in the company controlled by the billionaire, which my friend was assured would fairly repay him someday. A few months ago the stock of the firm was diluted 100 to 1, and my friend’s nest egg pretty much wiped out. He left the firm.

The irony? His patents, all assigned to his former employer, are now issuing.

The point is that it is important for idea people to own their own intellectual property.

United States Patent: 7194511
United States Patent 7,194,511
Stettner March 20, 2007
System and method to manage participant input for an interactive show

As recently as two months ago a young entrepreneur took an invention to a company I am invested in, negotiated to sell or license the invention. After many meetings the CEO told this person that the company had decided it could just copy the invention. At the next meeting the CEO said that he had just discovered that his company had, unbeknownst to him, “been working on just the same invention for several months before” negotiations had begun with the young entrepreneur. This seemed rather incredible, but what was the young man to do?

Theft of legitimate inventions, original innovations, is a day-to-day occurrence in the technology ecosystem. This is the elephant on the table in discussions of patents. What is needed by true innovators, by creative people, is better protection, not weaker protection.

Honestly, I am angry about this situation. I am saddened by the stories of young people and young companies whose inventions are stolen by those with the money and the market power to capitalize on these inventions.