Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

The Patent Bubble and Its End

020213_lft

“Then they pop up and say, ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!’ Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.”

Those are the words of Newegg.com’s chief legal officer, Lee Cheng. He was speaking to Arstechnica.com following a landmark ruling that sided with a great business against a wicked patent troll company called Soverain.

What is a patent troll? It is a company that has acquired patents (usually through purchases on the open market) but does not use them for any productive purpose. Instead, it lives off looting good companies by blackmailing people. The trolls say, “Pay us now or get raked over the coals in court.”

Soverain is one such company. Most companies it has sued have paid the ransom. Soverain has collected untold hundreds of millions in fines from the likes of Bloomingdale’s, J.C. Penney, J. Crew, Victoria’s Secret, Amazon, and Nordstrom.

It sounds like a criminal operation worthy of the old world of, say, southern Italy (no offense, guys!). Indeed, but this is how it works in the U.S. these days. The looting is legal. The blackmail is approved. The graft is in the open. The expropriation operates under the cover of the law. The backup penalties are inflicted by the official courts.

To be sure, the trolls may not be as bad as conventional patent practice. At least the trolls don’t try to shut you down and cartelize the economy. They just want to get their beak wet. Once that happens, you are free to go about your business. This is one reason they have been so successful.

Soverain’s plan was to loot every online company in existence for a percentage of their revenue, citing the existence of just two patents. Thousands of companies have given in, causing an unnatural and even insane increase in the price of patent bundles. Free enterprise lives in fear.

Let me add a point that Stefan Molyneux made concerning this case. The large companies are annoyed by the patent-troll pests but not entirely unhappy with their activities. The large companies can afford to pay them off. Smaller companies cannot. In this way, the trolls serve to reduce competition.

[Stefan made his comments on an edition of Adam v. The Man, in which we were both guests. you can watch the entire show here.]

When Soverain came after Newegg’s online shopping cart demanding $34 million, a lower court decided against Newegg, but only imposed a fine of $2.5 million. Newegg examined the opinion and found enough holes in the case to appeal. It was a gutsy decision, given the trends. But as Cheng told Ars Technica:

“We basically took a look at this situation and said, ‘This is bull****.’ We saw that if we paid off this patent holder, we’d have to pay off every patent holder this same amount. This is the first case we took all the way to trial. And now nobody has to pay Soverain jack squat for these patents.”

It’s true. The case not only shuts down the Soverain racket. It might have dealt a devastating blow to the whole patent hysteria and the vicious trolling that has fueled it all along.

And truly, the patent mania has become crazy. No one 10 years ago would have imagined that it would go this far.

“It’s a sign of something gone awry, not a healthy market,” attorney Neil Wilkof told Gigaom.com, with reference to the utterly insane amounts that well-heeled tech giants have been paying for patents. “I think we’re in a patent bubble in a very specific industry. It’s a distorted market and misallocation of resources.”

[Note: This entire racket is anticipated and debunked in the pioneering work on the topic. The new edition of Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property is now available for free to Club members.]

Earlier this year, Google shelled out $12.5 billion for the acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Facebook threw down $550 million for AOL’s patents. Apple and Google spent more last year on patent purchases and litigation than on actual research and development. The smartphone industry coughed up $20 billion last year on the patent racket. A lawsuit last year against Samsung awarded Apple $1 billion in a ridiculous infringement case.

These are astronomical numbers — figures that would have been inconceivable in the past. Everyone seems to agree that the system is radically broken. What people don’t always understand is that every penny of this is unnecessary and pointless. This market is a creation of legislation, and nothing more. The companies aren’t really buying anything but the right to produce and the right not to be sued, and that is not always secure.

Let’s back up. Why are there markets in anything at all? They exist because goods have to be allocated some way. There are not enough cars, carrots, and coffee to meet all existing conceivable demand. We can fight over them or find ways to cooperate through trade. Prices are a way to settle the struggle over goods that people grow or make, or services people provide, in a peaceful way. They allow people to engage to their mutual benefit, rather than club or shoot each other.

But what is being exchanged in the patent market? It’s not real goods or services. These are government creations of a bureaucracy — an exclusive right to make something. They are tickets that make production legal. If you own one, there is no broad market for it. It has only a handful of possible buyers, and the price of your good is based entirely on how much money you think you can extract from deep pockets. Sometimes, you actually force people to buy with the threat that you will sue if they don’t.

That’s not how normal markets operate. There was a time when patents didn’t even apply to software at all. The whole industry was built by sharing ideas and the spirit of old-fashioned competition. Companies would work together when it was to their mutual advantage and hoard competitive reasons when it was not. It seemed to work fine, until legislation intervened.

Today the entire fake market for patents is sustained by the perception that courts will favor the patent holders over the victims. The Newegg case changes that perception, which is why it has been the most closely watched case in the industry. This might signal the end of the reign of terror, at least one form of it.

But, you say, don’t creators deserve compensation? My answer: If they create something people are willing to pay for, great. But that’s not what’s happening. Soverain’s bread and butter was a handful of patents that had been on the open market, changing hands through three different companies over the course of 10 years, until they landed in the laps of some extremely unscrupulous wheeler-dealers.

In other words, patents these days have little to nothing to do with the creators — any more than mortgage-backed securities at the height of the boom had anything to do with the initial lender and its risk assessments. Once a patent is issued — and they are not automatically valid, but rather have to be tested in litigation — it enters into the market and can land anywhere. The idea that the patent has anything to do with inspiring innovation is total myth. It is all about establishing and protecting monopolistic weapons with which to beat people.

Many people have been hoping for patent reform. It probably won’t happen and might not even need to happen. If this case is as significant as tech observers say, a sizeable portion of this fake industry could be smashed via a dramatic price deflation. When something is no longer worth much, people stop wanting it.

Patents date from a time when a great industrial innovation made the headlines just because it was so rare. That’s not our world. Government has no business allocating and centrally planning ideas. Here’s to Newegg: Take a bow. Someone had the guts to say no. This time, for once, it worked.

Yours,
Jeffrey Tucker

  • http://twitter.com/Hallingip Dale Halling

    Patents are property rights and part of Free Market.

    Evidence linking Patents and Economic Growth

    I think we have a lot more evidence than most people and economists
    either know about or purposely ignore.

    For instance, the book by Zorina Khan, “The Democratization of
    Invention” http://www.amazon.com/The-Democratization-Invention-Copyrights-Development/dp/0521747201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348076632&sr=8-1&keywords=zorina+khan, which is an extensive survey of how the US patent system affected inventors, investment and how the US system differed from Europe’s.

    Also see Invention and Economic Growth, by Jacob Schmookler. Schmookler was one of the first economists to undertake a detail econometric study of patents. Unfortunately, the book is out of
    print. He examined many of the issues that are being debated today including the absurd idea of whether invention is endogenous vs exogenous (something Khan also examines).

    The main reason we have problem clearing patent rights today has been the absurd attack by antitrust (rebranded as competition law) zealots (see FTCs 9 no nos) that destroy patent pools. Even if there were some problems with patent pools, they were nothing compared to the damage done by the FTC antitrust crusade in the 1970s (see what they did to Xerox and copier market). These efforts destroyed the market mechanisms for effectively clearing patent rights. As Khan points out somewhere around 70% of all patents issued in the late 1800s were licensed or assigned to other people.

    If you read a Farwell to Alms by Gregory Clark http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348077723&sr=1-1&keywords=farewell+to+alms, which was about how we escaped the Malthusian Trap and substitute the fact that property rights for inventions were just becoming widely available instead of his
    fanciful evolution idea, you see people started to escape the Malthusian Trap and innovation accelerated suddenly with the advent of patent system. Interesting Japan’s experience with patent systems is a perfect example and shows that when they adopted the US patent system their per capita income took off.

    Also if you do a survey of Countries like the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation survey of economic freedom or Frasier Institute does, it is clear that countries with stronger patent systems are wealthier,protect property rights better, and economically freer.

    There are also number of academic papers on this issue. See http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33153/ and R&D, Invention and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis, by Professor Hulya Ulku, and Patent Rights and Economic Growth: Evidence from Cross-Country Panels of Manufacturing Industries http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~ipng/research/patent_text.pdf

    In my book, I show that we have significantly weakened the property rights of inventors since 2000. In
    addition, I show that Sarbanes Oxley has killed off funding for technology startups. These changes have resulted in less innovation and slower economic growth. We are not innovating as fast as we did in the 90s.

    • Brian

      Great info Dale. What’s the name of your book?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daa-Aad/100000041361711 Daa Aad

      “Patents are property rights and part of Free Market.”

      What part of the US patent system exactly was created by the free market, as oppose to legislation by Congress? Please enlighten us all here.

      • Brian

        Nice try. He didn’t say created. He said a part of. Similar to anti-shoplifting laws promoting free trade.

  • Brian

    Mr. Tucker,

    Shame, shame. Your article started just fine but devolved into absurdity. I happen to agree that there are abuses to the system, of which patent trolling is one and I applaud Newegg for fighting it. But you simply can’t make blanket statements to buttress a cracked solution to this problem.

    • “…patents these days have little to nothing to do with the creators”

    Really? What about the lone inventor who slaves away for years in his basement spending all of his spare time and his entire life savings to bring his invention to fruition? Patents are his only protection from both legitimate competition (who already have the capital and distribution to steal his idea and leave him destitute) and illegitimate troll types as well. There are still proper and legitimate uses for patents.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!

    • “The idea that the patent has anything to do with inspiring innovation is total myth.”

    Really? Try reading the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8.8. You know the constitution, the finest document promoting individual rights and liberty to ever be written by man. There is is a reason a document promoting individual liberty has things like the 2nd amendment and Article I, Section 8.8 in it. An excerpt from one of my previous post would be useful here:

    “It not surprising that that our Founding Fathers who sought to be free from European oppression would include in the constitution the provision for innovation and creativity;

    “Article I, Section 8.8–To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

    Please note: (“To promote the progress of science and useful arts”). This was its ORIGINAL purpose.

    I also think it would be useful to include excerpts from the first US Patent Statute (Patent Act of 1790);

    “that he, she, or they, hath or have invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used” and

    “if they shall deem the invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important”

    Please note: (“or any improvement therein not before known or used”) which promotes not only NEW products but innovations on OLD ones.

    Please note: (“sufficiently useful and important”) An invention that does not work is neither useful nor important. So you had to prove that it worked.”

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! Just return to laws that worked!

    • “Patents date from a time when a great industrial innovation made the headlines just because it was so rare. That’s not our world.”

    This sounds suspiciously close to a progressive argument for gutting the constition. We must ‘get with the times’. The constition is ‘a living and breathing document and we must not ‘stick to the failed ideas of the past’.

    Principles are timeless! Adhering to them is not, unfortunately.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! Stick to principles!

    (I should point out that since creative protection is in the constitution, that the proper course of action, if you you believe in its elimination, would be a constitutional amendment to abolish it)

    • the guy from rhinoceros

      The original patent law as created by the Founding
      Fathers was a marvelous balance between catering to private interest and
      to the Common Good. Patent Law was created to increase contributions to
      the Public Domain, not to create a class of inherited wealth. Extending
      patent duration serves no public good. However, reducing patent duration
      would discourage inventors from making the creative effort. The explosive growth
      in secondary patents and concomitant explosion in opportunities for
      litigation is just bad, but is not relevant to either the intent of The Founding Fathers or to the real benefit that society gains from insuring that inventors get rewarded for the value they create instead of seeing their inventions and innovations ripped off and marketed by others without just recompense. Being
      an inventor is not an easy living, and the growing complexity of patent
      law and the growth in litigation has made it even more difficult. The
      days of Thomas Edison working alone with one assistant in his private
      lab are over. Today’s inventor needs a support team of patent
      investigators and litigators. I’d like to see secondary patents awarded
      only for demonstrable improvements in specific processes and for improving the
      workings of actual, not conceptual, devices.

      • Franklin

        The “Founding Fathers” were mistaken. Citing them is not an argument against Tucker’s nor Kinsella’s thesis.
        Further, the Common Good is a meaningless term, although often employed by the well-connected to assure their monopoly on illusory property, all whilst stifling liberty, creativity and freedom.

        • Brian

          Nor is simply declaring them mistaken. Prove it! I have extensively laid out the illogical, anti-liberty flaws in their argument on other post.

          • Franklin

            On the other post? On the other post you were resoundingly trounced by rikugo and, in far terser means, Kinsella himself. Your lengthy diatribes do not address the fact that you mistakingly conflate value and property. Further, you insist on just reiterating utilitarian arguments (which were also the Founders’ motivation when they were crafting a nation), giving monopoly powers to the government who can arbitrarily determine what is your singular work vs. the culmination of thousands of years and thousands of ideas.
            The book referenced and endorsed on this site has proactively addressed your objections, yet you haven’t addressed the Kinsella thesis and construct of property.

          • Brian

            For the Goose but not the Gander, hey? I suppose its a matter of prospective. You have a belief and refuse to acknowledge evidence to the contrary when presented. You see what you want to see. My “lengthy diatribes” as you call them are counters to the lengthy diatribes of others like rikugow. Furthermore, I actually attempt to prove what I say instead of short self-perceived profundities which are really nothing more than assumptive declarations. I quite successfully addressed those issues you mentioned, but then again you see what you want to see. My argument is for individual rights and liberties and Mr. Kinsella’s is utilitarian. You can only flip that if you leave out critical elements. The Founders were concerned with individual liberties. Whose Declaration of Independence and Constitution have you been reading? “Monopoly powers to the Government”. Uhh? We are talking about who has the rights to the fruits of MY production. Government does not, whether its in the form of oppressive taxes, redistribution, inflation, etc. Nor does my “consumer” neighbor in the form of redistribution or theft (regardless of the self-sactimonious excuses).

            Have you thought to ask why Kinsella attaches rights to property but not value. Hint: it makes his argument sound more plausible. Critical point here: property rights are not absolute!

      • Tim C.

        Common and public good are collectivist platitudes. The only obligation of the individual has to others is that he do nothing to infringe their rights. He need not do anything that benefits any one else in any way.

        • Brian

          Tim, I would agree with you. However, I think Rhino was saying that the Founders achieved both without sacrificing individual liberties. A difficult but marvelous thing to accomplish.