Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public Patent Foundation's Missi...

Google Tech Talks
August 6, 2008

ABSTRACT

Many 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. Ravicher
Daniel 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.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[semiliteratedgod]

Very important, great video, thanks

[twdarkflame]

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)

[juanito89dasilva]

promote your online/offline business with a professional video just perfect for you. go to ===> myvisualinventory.blogspot.com <=== now!

[juanito89dasilva]

promote your online/offline business with a professional video just perfect for you. go check my yt channel or myvisualinventory.blogspot.com

[twdarkflame]

and what if someone else would have made the same thing anyway? what if your invention could save lives, or help a huge number of people, is it really morally to denigh humanity from having it because you were the first?

[Yvette Grier]

I call BS. If I create something and own it, what I do with it is my business. Whether I choose to use it or not. It is mine to decide.

[1itosh]

@ZerqTM I am in total 100% agreement with you!

[1itosh]

I am in total 100% agreement with you!

[yankswin11]

If you abolish the patent system, then it becomes purely manufacturing and all those jobs went to China and India where labor is cheap -- so good luck with that. The rise of globalization requires IP protection to keep America competitive -- otherwise, we have nothing left to offer the world, we're screwed then.

[yankswin11]

Also, the big problem is pharmaceuticals is that it's really easy to copy -- once you know the active ingredients, you can pretty much do it. Even with other inventions, China is really good at copying things and so, if anything, patents protects us from Chinese companies selling rip-offs at half the price. So think about that also -- it prevents foreigners from destroying the U.S. economy.

[yankswin11]

@Piscivorus

That's because in America, our economic system is capitalism, and the goal of a publicly-traded corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders, if not the shareholders themselves can actually sue its own publicly-traded corporation for incompetence. So U.S. corporate law is equally at fault here. Moreover, it's the survival of the fittest mentality, if your competition is doing the same thing, you better do it, or otherwise your company is going to go out of business.

[yankswin11]

Well often times the inventors apply for a patent before they start commercializing the product for two primary reasons: (1) don't want someone else to file the same patent before you, and (2) you need venture capital funds and they will only invest in you if they see patents.