What Election Could Mean For Patent Reform

BY CCIA Staff
November 19, 2010

The results of this week’s mid-term elections have been linked to a public desire for “smaller government” or hostility to “big government.” Assuming this is the case, it may be useful to consider what implications a small-government philosophy has for important policy debates, such as the effort to reform the vast federal patent system.

Patent laws, like copyright, represent a government response to a perceived market failure.  Ideas and expressions are hard to control, as Thomas Jefferson famously observed, and if there is no Federal protection for authors and inventors, ideas will be under-produced.  To incent people to produce a sufficient quantity of ideas, the federal government needs to create a market.  It does this by assigning ‘rights,’ and giving litigants causes of action to sue those who infringe upon their government-granted rights.

It is not hard to overdo this, particularly if one has been led to believe the federal government is making property, rather than regulating.  There is a dangerous attraction here: if ideas have value, and there is a seemingly endless supply of them, then the federal government can manufacture an infinite supply of valuable assets by handing out rights to ideas.  Under closer inspection, this perspective breaks down, and it is incorrect to assume that assigning exclusive rights is a costless exercise.  More relevantly, granting more federal rights could reasonably be viewed as a ‘government-as-solution’ strategy, which, we have assumed, is what voters rejected.  This may suggest that a patent reform bill which would reduce the role of federally-granted privileges should find philosophical support in the new Congress.

While it is too early to rule out the possibility of action on specific patent issues in the ‘lame duck’ session, comprehensive action is likelier to occur in the 112th Congress.  Rep. Lamar Smith, expected to return to the chair of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated that patent reform remains high on the agenda.  As that agenda moves forward, one might expect to hear questions not previously raised, such as whether business method patents (not explicitly ruled out by the Supreme Court’s recent Bilski decision) are consistent with a limited role of the federal government in the free market.

If “less government” is merely a bumper sticker, the ultimate effect of the elections on patent reform may not be great.  If the principle affirmatively guides patent policy, however, then reforms could significantly reshape how the patent system regulates American business.

Related Articles

The AIA At Ten: The Positive Impact of Inter Partes Review

Jul 12, 2021

The America Invents Act celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. This panel will examine perspectives from a variety of industries, ranging from life sciences to startups, on how the inter partes review process created in the AIA has improved patent quality, reduced patent litigation, and promoted progress in the innovation ecosystem.   The AIA At…

Tech Association Response To House Bills Aimed At Handful of Tech Companies

Jun 11, 2021

Washington —  Democratic House Representatives on the House Judiciary Committee have introduced a series of interventionist bills with the aim of regulating a selected group of American digital service providers. These proposed regulations represent a shift from the market-oriented principles that have characterized U.S. economic policy. They would have a severe impact on U.S. economic…

CCIA Statement On the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act Passing the Senate

Jun 8, 2021

Washington – The Senate has approved a bill aimed at keeping the United States’ competitive edge as a leader in technology and innovation. The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act would strengthen U.S. leadership in critical technologies, such as artificial intelligence, high performance computing, and advanced manufacturing, and the commercialization of those technologies to businesses in…