« First fallout from Supreme Court decisions | Main | Workforce really does matter »
May 3, 2007
Patent sanity - from the Wall Street Journal
This morning's Wall Street Journal -- Patently Obvious:
We can't believe we're writing this, but the Supreme Court is restoring some sanity to America's runaway patent law. A year ago, it gave judges much-needed flexibility in granting or denying permanent injunctions in eBay. And this week it took another positive step in KSR v. Teleflex, which dealt with the design of the humble gas pedal but has far larger consequences.
In striking down a Teleflex patent on a gas pedal, the High Court showed how easily patent law can "stifle, rather than promote" progress, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy's unanimous opinion. The question was whether a pedal design patented in 2001 was nothing more than an "obvious" combination of previously existing designs. The trial court ruled it was obvious, and invalidated the patent. An appeals court overruled, but the Supremes sided with the trial court. In doing so, the Justices rebuked the appellate patent court for having raised the bar too high in assessing "obviousness."
This is important because it will help rein in what has become a proliferation of patents for increasingly small or dubious technology adaptations. This in turn is damaging innovation by throwing more and more business decisions into patent court.
. . .
Our patent system is only as good as the bureaucrats who grant the patents and the courts that enforce them. So if a legal standard allows dubious patents to be enforced, then innovation and the economy may suffer.
This is the point overlooked by some of our libertarian friends, who argue that because property rights are good, and a patent is a kind of property right, then all patents must be good. But only a good patent is good -- that much should be obvious. A bad legal standard allows bad patents to be enforced against legitimate competitors, and it tells the folks at the Patent Office to be less careful in issuing patents than they should be.
Teleflex is the latest in a series of cases that have tried to better define the proper limits and roles of patents. This is not partisan or ideological work, and it won't get much attention in the next Supreme Court confirmation fight. But it is vital to promoting innovation in a competitive economy, and is worth applauding.
I too can't believe that they are writing this. But, I'm glad they saw the light.
Posted by Ken Jarboe at May 3, 2007 7:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.athenaalliance.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1288