So, today they gave me a full physical. It took nearly 2 hours. One of the benefits of doing this is getting all of this free stuff. Want a free physical? Give blood or apply for life insurance. Anyway, they took 5 tubes of blood to be tested. Then they gave me a chest x-ray and an EKG.
A couple of things they look for on the x-ray: First, and most important, they want to know if your lungs are clear. Next, they check your torso for any masses that may be cancerous, or for kidney stones, stuff like that. It never hurts to look at the bones that show up to make sure they're healthy- you don't have any displaced vertebrae or broken ribs. Last, when you look at a chest x-ray, you can see a faint white substance on the middle left- it's your heart. If it shows much more than that, it may mean you have an enlarged heart. If any other organs show up, it could mean they're enlarged, too. Needless to say, mine was clear.
EKGs are always fun, because no two people's hearts are the same- not even identical twins. Everyone has something unique. They put these little things on you that almost remind you of the hot wax they put on you when you go and get a wax job- they hurt a little coming off. I encourage anyone who hasn't gotten one to have one done, just to find out about your heart. They took pulse, temp., and blood pressure (my vitals always run a little low, for some reason), height (just under the 5'9" that I tell everyone that I am), weight (155 lbs., as usual), and gave me an exam. They reminded me to not tan, or drink coffee, or smoke (I don't, except for the tanning thing come summer- I'm kind of white).
By the way, I know this is something quite sensative, but many cancers are preventable, if not by habit, by examination. In addition to self examination, I don't mind the doctors reminding me, from time to time, how to do it. This way I know I'm doing it correctly. Basically, you should examine any part of your body that is a gland for lumps or discharge, about once monthly. Anyway, it's worth noting that men can get breast cancer, too- Mr. T had it; Rod Roddy died from it. Finally, every man's favorite part of a physical, a hernia and prostate check- it sucks, but the alternative, I can imagine would suck waaaaayyyyyyyyyy more.
They'll let me know next week, but everything seemed to be fine.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Adventures in Donating Bone Marrow
So, back when I was an undergrad, 2002 or 2003 or so, Saint Louis University had a bone marrow donor drive, and I signed up. I honestly don't recall doing it, but it sounds like something I would do. I give blood frequently, so I wouldn't put it past myself to offer to give bone marrow. Anyway, out of the blue, a few weeks ago I was notified that I was a potential match for a 58 year old MDS patient, and that they would need me to come in and have some more thorough tests done.
In early August, I had blood drawn. I was told that although it would be unlikely, in the event that I was a good match, I would be called back, at which time I would need to make a decision. A week and a half after the draw, I was called back.
While on the phone I was apprised of how marrow is taken out during a donation. Apparently there are two methods. The first is the more traditional method. You're put to sleep, and they draw marrow from your pelvis. They make several small incisions, and I would imagine you'd spend the better part of a week feeling like some trollop who just got a tramp stamp. The newer method involves injections of filgastrim, a compound used in chemo patients to boost their leukocyte counts, that when given to people with ordinary immune systems, results in an unusually high white blood cell count, making it possible to extract marrow from the blood instead of the bone. Then what they do, is hook you up to something called an electrophoresis machine, that takes blood out of one arm, removes the bone marrow inside the machine, and then replaces the blood in the other arm.
(If any of you has had a "double red" blood donation, or given plasma, they use a similar contraption for that.) I've also been told that they're beginning to use a similar process for cardiac patients as a sort of "roto rooter" for clogged veins and arteries.
Anyway, after a few hours of that machine, you're all done.
After they explained the process to me, they explained that KC has nowhere to do it. That's the bad news. The good news: They'll pay for me- and a companion of my choice- to fly to Denver, St. Louis, or DC...and pick up the check, in order to get it done. (I'm choosing Denver, solely because I've never been to Denver- I lived in St. Louis for four years and spent a summer interning in DC). I haven't picked yet, but I'll probably ask my Dad to come along- my brothers are in school, and the last time my mom was in the CO, she got nose bleeds.
Anyway, the next thing they did was get a medical history (like what you do when you go to a new doctor for the first time), and take a health questionnaire (like those questions they ask you when you go to give blood)...and for those of you who were wondering, no, I have not gotten a tattoo or piercing in the last year, or had anal sex in Sub Saharan Africa with a male prostitute while injecting bovine insulin.
Next, after the phone call, was an information session. They gave me a packet full of every question you ever wanted to know about bone marrow donation, and asked me to read it. Then, I had to set up a meeting with Rebecca Brungardt, with the local Be the Match office. She advised me that although no one has ever died giving marrow, it is a risk (and if I become disabled, they'll pay my meds- and if I die, my brother gets a million bucks).
She advised me that only about 30% or so of the public has a match in their family- that means that most of the recipients need a donor from outside their family. Also, sadly, the chances of survival of a recipient are typically much less than 50%. Reasons for this include the fact that diseases like MDS and leukemia are difficult to cure under any circumstance; in addition, donations can cause the body's immune systemt to reject its own organs. She did advise that I not give blood for up to one year following the donation, as they may need me to give again.
At the end of the session, I was given informed consent, which I signed. I was also asked to participate in research, both long and short term, regarding the drug filgastrim. I agreed. Next up: A full physical- all expenses paid.
When my Mom found out, she asked me why. Here is my response: If I were in the same spot, or if any family or close friends were, I'd hope that someone who was a match would be generous enough to give. I'll keep you updated on this. The reason I'm writing this is to encourage others to donate, as well as to inform them about what goes on in a donation, and assuage any fears people might have about giving.
In early August, I had blood drawn. I was told that although it would be unlikely, in the event that I was a good match, I would be called back, at which time I would need to make a decision. A week and a half after the draw, I was called back.
While on the phone I was apprised of how marrow is taken out during a donation. Apparently there are two methods. The first is the more traditional method. You're put to sleep, and they draw marrow from your pelvis. They make several small incisions, and I would imagine you'd spend the better part of a week feeling like some trollop who just got a tramp stamp. The newer method involves injections of filgastrim, a compound used in chemo patients to boost their leukocyte counts, that when given to people with ordinary immune systems, results in an unusually high white blood cell count, making it possible to extract marrow from the blood instead of the bone. Then what they do, is hook you up to something called an electrophoresis machine, that takes blood out of one arm, removes the bone marrow inside the machine, and then replaces the blood in the other arm.
(If any of you has had a "double red" blood donation, or given plasma, they use a similar contraption for that.) I've also been told that they're beginning to use a similar process for cardiac patients as a sort of "roto rooter" for clogged veins and arteries.
Anyway, after a few hours of that machine, you're all done.
After they explained the process to me, they explained that KC has nowhere to do it. That's the bad news. The good news: They'll pay for me- and a companion of my choice- to fly to Denver, St. Louis, or DC...and pick up the check, in order to get it done. (I'm choosing Denver, solely because I've never been to Denver- I lived in St. Louis for four years and spent a summer interning in DC). I haven't picked yet, but I'll probably ask my Dad to come along- my brothers are in school, and the last time my mom was in the CO, she got nose bleeds.
Anyway, the next thing they did was get a medical history (like what you do when you go to a new doctor for the first time), and take a health questionnaire (like those questions they ask you when you go to give blood)...and for those of you who were wondering, no, I have not gotten a tattoo or piercing in the last year, or had anal sex in Sub Saharan Africa with a male prostitute while injecting bovine insulin.
Next, after the phone call, was an information session. They gave me a packet full of every question you ever wanted to know about bone marrow donation, and asked me to read it. Then, I had to set up a meeting with Rebecca Brungardt, with the local Be the Match office. She advised me that although no one has ever died giving marrow, it is a risk (and if I become disabled, they'll pay my meds- and if I die, my brother gets a million bucks).
She advised me that only about 30% or so of the public has a match in their family- that means that most of the recipients need a donor from outside their family. Also, sadly, the chances of survival of a recipient are typically much less than 50%. Reasons for this include the fact that diseases like MDS and leukemia are difficult to cure under any circumstance; in addition, donations can cause the body's immune systemt to reject its own organs. She did advise that I not give blood for up to one year following the donation, as they may need me to give again.
At the end of the session, I was given informed consent, which I signed. I was also asked to participate in research, both long and short term, regarding the drug filgastrim. I agreed. Next up: A full physical- all expenses paid.
When my Mom found out, she asked me why. Here is my response: If I were in the same spot, or if any family or close friends were, I'd hope that someone who was a match would be generous enough to give. I'll keep you updated on this. The reason I'm writing this is to encourage others to donate, as well as to inform them about what goes on in a donation, and assuage any fears people might have about giving.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Why GHW Bush Lost- and Why That's Important
Almsot 20 years after the fact, history is still attempting to comprehend how and why a seemingly popular president, just a few months before an election, one who presided over a mostly good economy and who won a war, lost his re-election attempt. What's more, if the GOP continues the decline it began in 2006 over the rift between the Conservative Establishment and the Christian Right (which has morphed into the rift between the Tea Party and the Conservative Establishment), the party will self destruct. Further, if the Democrats mislearn the lesson of Clinton's victory, the party's best President in years- Barack Obama- will go down in history as a loser when he otherwise may not be.
Myths
It was the Economy, Stupid. Except that it wasn't. The Dow Jones was up roughly 33% during Bush's presideny- at least that part leading up to the election (eerily similiar to Obama, by the way). As for unemployment, it was in the low 5s when he took office and in the mid 7s in the summer of 1992. It certainly allowed Clinton to argue that the economy was bad, but unemployment has averaged 7% since 1974 (and the average unemployment from '74-'92 was even higher). It took a bit of a spike from the inflation following the Gulf War, and it went up a bit following the fallout of the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1991.
Read my lips: higher taxes. There is conventional wisdom that Bush lost because he broke a campaign promise not to raise taxes. This has been a tragically dangerous lesson for the GOP, as even in the face of a paucity of government revenue, they refuse to raise taxes citing Bush's defeat. Fact: Ronald Reagan raised taxes. I understand he lowered marginal and corporate tax rates. He also raised payroll and self employment tax rates. And, while he lowered corporate rates, he also eliminated a lot of the deductions corporations were allowed to take. Under Reagan, tax reform was just that- reform, and reform was not synonymous with cut.
Why Bush Lost, and Why Both Parties Mislearned History
The Economy Stupid argument had nothing to do with the economy. It was part of a larger attempt on Clinton's part. The biggest reason Clinton had a chance in '92 was that he was able to convince America that he was "cooler" than Bush; that he was more attuned to the problems of everyday Americans. He did this by portraying Bush as senile. George Bush is the same generation as my grandparents were- actuallly a little bit younger; agewise, my grandparents were in between Reagan and Bush. But in 1992, my grandmother was diagnosed with terminal cancer (the doctors gave her 6 months to live; she hung on for 3 more years, first by moving in with my parents and then into a nursing home); my grandfather had his second heart surgery and a hip replacement. Both were in excellent health; but they were old, and I can't help but think that a lot of Americans were dealing with the same thing my parents were, and wondered how much of an issue Bush's age would play. I understand Reagan was 77 (just days shy of 78) when he left office, but he was ageless. The silver screen had a fountain of youth effect on him that just simply didn't apply to others. He also stumbled across the finish line: the last half of his second term, he had numerous lapses in judgment and public gaffes. In many ways, Bush was president from '87 on.
America was sick of the White House being a geriatric center (not just with Bush and Reagan, but also with Gerald Ford in the years before Carter), and Clinton took full advantage of America's longing for youth. Instead of saying Bush is too old, or that he was senile (a tactic that surely would've backfired), what Clinton did was show a lot of youth in his own campaign, and jump at every chance to point out when Bush was out of touch with reality, even if he actually wasn't (remember pony tail hair guy?)- and then hope that America would connect the dots. It was about the appearance of being out of touch. The Economy Stupid had nothing to do with money. It was about age.
On the issue of taxes, the argument goes something like this: Bush abandoned "real conservatives", who either stayed home or voted for Perot. Perot took Bush's base when Bush left it. The problem with this argument is that it confuses Ross Perot with Ron Paul. Perot and the Reform Party were completely moot on social issues. They opposed any platform that took any stance on any social issue. They didn't cost Bush his base, and certainly ont on the issue of taxes. If anything, Perot took away almost as many votes from Clinton as he did from Bush- and the voters he did take were the moderates who allowed Bush to prevail over Dukakis- and not the cons who allowed Bush to prevail over Pat Buchanan.
Simply put, Bush lost because Clinton out-campaigned him. Instead of running on his record, Bush ran against Clinton. Instead of appealing to the voters who elected him, Bush tried to be cooler than Clinton.
Why It Matters
Political scientists try to make sense of elections. 1992 was an anomaly: a seemingly popular president lost to a relative unknown despite a stellar record. The facts of the 1992 election directly contradicted the premise that a candidate's record speaks for itself, the American value that a person who is good at his job ought not be fired. All too often, we forget that politics, like any job, is as much salesmanship as it is hard work. What we forgot about '92 was that as good as Bush was, he just didn't do as good of a job as Clinton did at selling himself.
Instead, what we remember are two slogans: The Economy Stupid, and Read My Lips, No New Taxes. We offer this as explanation why Bush lost because we want to believe that good politicians are always re-elected. We also remember them, because they're what certain interests want us to.
The Left wants Clinton to be remembered as the architect of the '90s economy. While he deserves a lot of credit, so does Bush. The only way to cleave Clinton from Bush, on the issue of the economy is to point out that Bush lost because it had gotten worse under Bush's leadership- and Clinton was able to get it turned around.
The Right has a wing of extremists (led by men like Grover Norquist) who not only want to destroy the federal government, but also want to put Reagan on a pedestal. Doing so requires divorcing Reagan from Bush. It requires labeling Bush as an apostate (it also provides Reagan a little bit of cover for raising taxes as people will remember Bush's tax increases but not Reagan's). Telling the story this way, it makes a lot of GOP candidates extremely reluctant to ever raise taxes again lest his base forsake him, facts be damned.
Going Forward
For the GOP, the lesson is quite simple. Somewhere along the way, tax reform has been replaced with a tax aversion fetish. This is outright dangerous to America, as most Americans expect government to perform basic functions- ones that require money provided for by tax revenues. Taxes are at their lowest level since 1958. This means one of two things must occur: either government must dramatically shrink- and by shrink, I don't mean by starving welfare queens; I mean, citizens, themselves, providing things they've taken for granted as government functions- things like road work, Social Security, military, police, emergency service. Or, in the alternative, taxes must go up. They can't be afraid of raising them because of Bush's loss- it isn't why he lost.
For the Dems, the lesson is a little more complex. Like Bush, Obama may be plagued by the specter of a bad economy. Bush's sin was being unable to sell the job he did. He was unable to sell the public on the idea that the unemployment picture, while precarious, was not indicative of the economy at large. Under Obama, the economy's per capita GDP is the highest it's ever been (if this were truly a bad economy, it would be dropping). Total GDP is the highest it's been since before the recession. The Dow Jones is near its 2007 highs. True, the housing market is still bad in many areas, and unemployment isn't impressive. But unemployment is barely up 1% since Obama took office, and the economy's added more job growth in the private sector under Obama than it did in the decade before he took office (in which net growth was 0). He needs to sell this. America already believes the recession isn't Obama's fault. He needs to run with this. He needs to sell the country on the idea (and since it's true, it shouldn't be that difficult of a sell) that because America spent 10 years sowing the seeds of this recession, digging out in a few months or even a few years is a totally preposterous expectation. Things are getting better; America needs to be patient.
The other lesson Obama must learn from the Economy Stupid slogan is that it stood for something larger: Bush's senility. The GOP wants to play the race card on Obama for a plethora of reasons- mostly because their base is primarily white. Clearly, those who are overtly racist needn't be courted: they're already voting against Obama. But the card can also be played against moderate Americans who don't consider themselves to be racist. It's done, not by saying, "Don't vote for the black guy", but instead by appealing to people's natural instinct to vote for like candidates. "Vote for this guy; he's more like you." Since that argument also reaks of xenophobia, it's best made obliquely. You make this argument by making Obama look like a member of some other culture. You make it look like Obama's policies are directed at helping some other group than middle class white. You say that he's "aloof", that he "doesn't get Main Street", and you couple the comment with a picture or story of him catering to the rich, or the extreme poor, or Muslims, or minorities. It's subliminal, but it works. America's angry (in part, because the anger of some Americans has been enticed).
Obama needs to get selectively angry. He can't do it too much, and even when he does do it, he can't over do it lest he play the part of the "angry black man", but he needs to get a little angry; he needs an "I'm paying for this microphone" moment. But most of all, he needs to illustrate how his programs are helping ordinary people. It's more than just a speech. It's an attitude.
Myths
It was the Economy, Stupid. Except that it wasn't. The Dow Jones was up roughly 33% during Bush's presideny- at least that part leading up to the election (eerily similiar to Obama, by the way). As for unemployment, it was in the low 5s when he took office and in the mid 7s in the summer of 1992. It certainly allowed Clinton to argue that the economy was bad, but unemployment has averaged 7% since 1974 (and the average unemployment from '74-'92 was even higher). It took a bit of a spike from the inflation following the Gulf War, and it went up a bit following the fallout of the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1991.
Read my lips: higher taxes. There is conventional wisdom that Bush lost because he broke a campaign promise not to raise taxes. This has been a tragically dangerous lesson for the GOP, as even in the face of a paucity of government revenue, they refuse to raise taxes citing Bush's defeat. Fact: Ronald Reagan raised taxes. I understand he lowered marginal and corporate tax rates. He also raised payroll and self employment tax rates. And, while he lowered corporate rates, he also eliminated a lot of the deductions corporations were allowed to take. Under Reagan, tax reform was just that- reform, and reform was not synonymous with cut.
Why Bush Lost, and Why Both Parties Mislearned History
The Economy Stupid argument had nothing to do with the economy. It was part of a larger attempt on Clinton's part. The biggest reason Clinton had a chance in '92 was that he was able to convince America that he was "cooler" than Bush; that he was more attuned to the problems of everyday Americans. He did this by portraying Bush as senile. George Bush is the same generation as my grandparents were- actuallly a little bit younger; agewise, my grandparents were in between Reagan and Bush. But in 1992, my grandmother was diagnosed with terminal cancer (the doctors gave her 6 months to live; she hung on for 3 more years, first by moving in with my parents and then into a nursing home); my grandfather had his second heart surgery and a hip replacement. Both were in excellent health; but they were old, and I can't help but think that a lot of Americans were dealing with the same thing my parents were, and wondered how much of an issue Bush's age would play. I understand Reagan was 77 (just days shy of 78) when he left office, but he was ageless. The silver screen had a fountain of youth effect on him that just simply didn't apply to others. He also stumbled across the finish line: the last half of his second term, he had numerous lapses in judgment and public gaffes. In many ways, Bush was president from '87 on.
America was sick of the White House being a geriatric center (not just with Bush and Reagan, but also with Gerald Ford in the years before Carter), and Clinton took full advantage of America's longing for youth. Instead of saying Bush is too old, or that he was senile (a tactic that surely would've backfired), what Clinton did was show a lot of youth in his own campaign, and jump at every chance to point out when Bush was out of touch with reality, even if he actually wasn't (remember pony tail hair guy?)- and then hope that America would connect the dots. It was about the appearance of being out of touch. The Economy Stupid had nothing to do with money. It was about age.
On the issue of taxes, the argument goes something like this: Bush abandoned "real conservatives", who either stayed home or voted for Perot. Perot took Bush's base when Bush left it. The problem with this argument is that it confuses Ross Perot with Ron Paul. Perot and the Reform Party were completely moot on social issues. They opposed any platform that took any stance on any social issue. They didn't cost Bush his base, and certainly ont on the issue of taxes. If anything, Perot took away almost as many votes from Clinton as he did from Bush- and the voters he did take were the moderates who allowed Bush to prevail over Dukakis- and not the cons who allowed Bush to prevail over Pat Buchanan.
Simply put, Bush lost because Clinton out-campaigned him. Instead of running on his record, Bush ran against Clinton. Instead of appealing to the voters who elected him, Bush tried to be cooler than Clinton.
Why It Matters
Political scientists try to make sense of elections. 1992 was an anomaly: a seemingly popular president lost to a relative unknown despite a stellar record. The facts of the 1992 election directly contradicted the premise that a candidate's record speaks for itself, the American value that a person who is good at his job ought not be fired. All too often, we forget that politics, like any job, is as much salesmanship as it is hard work. What we forgot about '92 was that as good as Bush was, he just didn't do as good of a job as Clinton did at selling himself.
Instead, what we remember are two slogans: The Economy Stupid, and Read My Lips, No New Taxes. We offer this as explanation why Bush lost because we want to believe that good politicians are always re-elected. We also remember them, because they're what certain interests want us to.
The Left wants Clinton to be remembered as the architect of the '90s economy. While he deserves a lot of credit, so does Bush. The only way to cleave Clinton from Bush, on the issue of the economy is to point out that Bush lost because it had gotten worse under Bush's leadership- and Clinton was able to get it turned around.
The Right has a wing of extremists (led by men like Grover Norquist) who not only want to destroy the federal government, but also want to put Reagan on a pedestal. Doing so requires divorcing Reagan from Bush. It requires labeling Bush as an apostate (it also provides Reagan a little bit of cover for raising taxes as people will remember Bush's tax increases but not Reagan's). Telling the story this way, it makes a lot of GOP candidates extremely reluctant to ever raise taxes again lest his base forsake him, facts be damned.
Going Forward
For the GOP, the lesson is quite simple. Somewhere along the way, tax reform has been replaced with a tax aversion fetish. This is outright dangerous to America, as most Americans expect government to perform basic functions- ones that require money provided for by tax revenues. Taxes are at their lowest level since 1958. This means one of two things must occur: either government must dramatically shrink- and by shrink, I don't mean by starving welfare queens; I mean, citizens, themselves, providing things they've taken for granted as government functions- things like road work, Social Security, military, police, emergency service. Or, in the alternative, taxes must go up. They can't be afraid of raising them because of Bush's loss- it isn't why he lost.
For the Dems, the lesson is a little more complex. Like Bush, Obama may be plagued by the specter of a bad economy. Bush's sin was being unable to sell the job he did. He was unable to sell the public on the idea that the unemployment picture, while precarious, was not indicative of the economy at large. Under Obama, the economy's per capita GDP is the highest it's ever been (if this were truly a bad economy, it would be dropping). Total GDP is the highest it's been since before the recession. The Dow Jones is near its 2007 highs. True, the housing market is still bad in many areas, and unemployment isn't impressive. But unemployment is barely up 1% since Obama took office, and the economy's added more job growth in the private sector under Obama than it did in the decade before he took office (in which net growth was 0). He needs to sell this. America already believes the recession isn't Obama's fault. He needs to run with this. He needs to sell the country on the idea (and since it's true, it shouldn't be that difficult of a sell) that because America spent 10 years sowing the seeds of this recession, digging out in a few months or even a few years is a totally preposterous expectation. Things are getting better; America needs to be patient.
The other lesson Obama must learn from the Economy Stupid slogan is that it stood for something larger: Bush's senility. The GOP wants to play the race card on Obama for a plethora of reasons- mostly because their base is primarily white. Clearly, those who are overtly racist needn't be courted: they're already voting against Obama. But the card can also be played against moderate Americans who don't consider themselves to be racist. It's done, not by saying, "Don't vote for the black guy", but instead by appealing to people's natural instinct to vote for like candidates. "Vote for this guy; he's more like you." Since that argument also reaks of xenophobia, it's best made obliquely. You make this argument by making Obama look like a member of some other culture. You make it look like Obama's policies are directed at helping some other group than middle class white. You say that he's "aloof", that he "doesn't get Main Street", and you couple the comment with a picture or story of him catering to the rich, or the extreme poor, or Muslims, or minorities. It's subliminal, but it works. America's angry (in part, because the anger of some Americans has been enticed).
Obama needs to get selectively angry. He can't do it too much, and even when he does do it, he can't over do it lest he play the part of the "angry black man", but he needs to get a little angry; he needs an "I'm paying for this microphone" moment. But most of all, he needs to illustrate how his programs are helping ordinary people. It's more than just a speech. It's an attitude.
Monday, August 8, 2011
To Mark Cuban
When considering patent policy there are two principles one must always bear. The first is something many economics and business majors will readily identify as the Tragedy of the Commons. The other is something that exists solely in the realm of patent law. It's called the Tragedy of the Anticommons.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a concept that if good ideas are undervalued, people will quit producing them, due to lack of motivation. In many respects it's what's happened to news papers. Too many of them put their product on the internet for free. Why would anyone buy the paper when he or she could get the news for free on the net? This, in turn, drove down revenues to the point where newspaper companies had to cut staff, diminishing their product. The entire concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is that patents should issue for good ideas in order for them to be properly valued, in order to motivate inventors.
The Tragedy of the Anticommons is the exact opposite. It results from a society that's so overprivatized that there is never any ingenuity for fear of infringement. It's the result of a society overpatenting stuff, or at the very least, patents that are too broadly enforced.
The reason I bring this up, is that while Mark Cuban is one of the brightest business men of the past 25 years, his suggestions on patent reform are plain awful. He writes from the point of view of someone who understands perfectly the Tragedy of the Anticommons, but fails to recognize the incentive inherent in the modern patent system. He's rightfully concerned about a system that's badly clogged and backlogged, but instead of improving it, Cuban proposes eliminating it.
Ending software patents would be one of the dumbest things America could ever do. Without such IP, the 1990s wouldn't have happened. The idea that copyright protection is more than enough relfects Cuban's fundamental misunderstanding of what each is. A patent protects an invention; a copyright protects a work of art. It also seems that Cuban fails to recognize that thanks to Walt Disney, copyrights are likely perpetual; patents have 20 years (or 14). Take for example, the Super Mario Bros. game. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that it was the first 8 bit platformer, even though it wasn't. The idea of Super Mario is copyrightable; his story is; the characters are; their images are; and even the exact instruction sequence of the program would be. But the idea of taking 8 bits of memory to create a platformer that you could play on your TV is not art. It's an invention. The codes specific to that game are both. The point is that whoever came up with that idea deserves to be compensated for it. Whoever creates the next platformer on 8 bits (which is not copyrightable) should have to pay that dude a royalty. At least for 20 years or so.
I agree with Cuban that business process patents need addressing. However, Cuban must think all patents by process are business only. And that's not true. A lot of them have to do with means of creating things used by lots of people. They don't last forever, but whoever comes up with a better way of doing something should get to do it, exclusively for a little while- it may the only advantage he ever has. It's not like processes can always be bought and sold- sometimes time is the only asset patents afford.
I agree with Cuban that patent trolls need to be reigned in. I disagree that the reform does nothing. By eliminating first to invent, that immediately gets rid of a lot of the interference. Once something is filed, the race is over. I also disagree that China is "beating" us because their patent system is better. Again, if China doesn't afford value to its IP, its IP will soon be worthless. And that's assuming that they are, in fact, winning. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I'd like to think that one reason the US has been #1 in the world's economy is because of innovation. China uses our businesses. They use our technology. They use Google...and Apple...and McDonald's. One reason we struggle is that we bear the risk of putting such products and businesses out there (for every one that succeeds, there are 1,000 that fail miserably, and unfortunately America has to fund those failures and pick up the tab when too many go under). Make no mistake, China may own the mortgage on the farm, and they might even be sharecropping, but America still does the planting and farming.
Instead, here's what I propose. First of all, a lot of patent trolls buy up technology that isn't being used, or buy IP from insolvent companies that the companies weren't using. What patent law needs is something akin to the doctrines of laches or adverse possession. It already has something called inequitable conduct. The problem is that the party accusing it must prove it up, as it's an affirmative defense, and prove it by clear and convincing evidence. We need a "use it or lose it" law. Also, infringers can get slapped with punitives when they behave egregiously- in some cases, the law provides for trebles. Egregious acts of patent trolling should have the same penalty.
Many states have consumer protection laws with pretty strong teeth. Many of them also have a "loser pays" clause in there to prevent frivolity. Something tells me if they did this in the event of certain infringements, you wouldn't see as much chicanery.
Secondly, I don't mind abbreviated patent rights for biotech and software, as both areas are more rapidly changing and more abstract than other patent areas. However, in return, there should be a "rocket docket" process for getting issues involving such technology to- and through- court.
Statute of Limitations and/or Repose. Currently, a patent's enforceability is its term plus 6 years. Set a 5 year limitation and a 10 year repose. In cases involving bad faith, it'll be unlimited, and subject to treble damages and a criminal penalty.
State courts have things like associate circuits and limited actions to dispose of smaller matters in short order. If you lose at that level, you can always appeal to the district or circuit court. There should be something like this for infringement. Smaller issues of infringement can be dealt with administratively. The idea of losing small at the administrative level instead of big in Fed Court might be incentive for some infringers to give in. The concept of an administrative review for smaller matters, coupled with "losers pay" in Big Boy Court might give Plaintiffs in infringements incentive to take advantage of the smaller court, and even possibly settle.
Cuban is correct in assertion that the patent system is too clogged up. He errs in thee solutions he proposes, because they take away many of the incentives essential to the systemt itself. Instead, what the system needs are less incentives for committing industrial espionage, and lesser rewards for large companies that wage attrition wars against smaller entities.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a concept that if good ideas are undervalued, people will quit producing them, due to lack of motivation. In many respects it's what's happened to news papers. Too many of them put their product on the internet for free. Why would anyone buy the paper when he or she could get the news for free on the net? This, in turn, drove down revenues to the point where newspaper companies had to cut staff, diminishing their product. The entire concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is that patents should issue for good ideas in order for them to be properly valued, in order to motivate inventors.
The Tragedy of the Anticommons is the exact opposite. It results from a society that's so overprivatized that there is never any ingenuity for fear of infringement. It's the result of a society overpatenting stuff, or at the very least, patents that are too broadly enforced.
The reason I bring this up, is that while Mark Cuban is one of the brightest business men of the past 25 years, his suggestions on patent reform are plain awful. He writes from the point of view of someone who understands perfectly the Tragedy of the Anticommons, but fails to recognize the incentive inherent in the modern patent system. He's rightfully concerned about a system that's badly clogged and backlogged, but instead of improving it, Cuban proposes eliminating it.
Ending software patents would be one of the dumbest things America could ever do. Without such IP, the 1990s wouldn't have happened. The idea that copyright protection is more than enough relfects Cuban's fundamental misunderstanding of what each is. A patent protects an invention; a copyright protects a work of art. It also seems that Cuban fails to recognize that thanks to Walt Disney, copyrights are likely perpetual; patents have 20 years (or 14). Take for example, the Super Mario Bros. game. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that it was the first 8 bit platformer, even though it wasn't. The idea of Super Mario is copyrightable; his story is; the characters are; their images are; and even the exact instruction sequence of the program would be. But the idea of taking 8 bits of memory to create a platformer that you could play on your TV is not art. It's an invention. The codes specific to that game are both. The point is that whoever came up with that idea deserves to be compensated for it. Whoever creates the next platformer on 8 bits (which is not copyrightable) should have to pay that dude a royalty. At least for 20 years or so.
I agree with Cuban that business process patents need addressing. However, Cuban must think all patents by process are business only. And that's not true. A lot of them have to do with means of creating things used by lots of people. They don't last forever, but whoever comes up with a better way of doing something should get to do it, exclusively for a little while- it may the only advantage he ever has. It's not like processes can always be bought and sold- sometimes time is the only asset patents afford.
I agree with Cuban that patent trolls need to be reigned in. I disagree that the reform does nothing. By eliminating first to invent, that immediately gets rid of a lot of the interference. Once something is filed, the race is over. I also disagree that China is "beating" us because their patent system is better. Again, if China doesn't afford value to its IP, its IP will soon be worthless. And that's assuming that they are, in fact, winning. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I'd like to think that one reason the US has been #1 in the world's economy is because of innovation. China uses our businesses. They use our technology. They use Google...and Apple...and McDonald's. One reason we struggle is that we bear the risk of putting such products and businesses out there (for every one that succeeds, there are 1,000 that fail miserably, and unfortunately America has to fund those failures and pick up the tab when too many go under). Make no mistake, China may own the mortgage on the farm, and they might even be sharecropping, but America still does the planting and farming.
Instead, here's what I propose. First of all, a lot of patent trolls buy up technology that isn't being used, or buy IP from insolvent companies that the companies weren't using. What patent law needs is something akin to the doctrines of laches or adverse possession. It already has something called inequitable conduct. The problem is that the party accusing it must prove it up, as it's an affirmative defense, and prove it by clear and convincing evidence. We need a "use it or lose it" law. Also, infringers can get slapped with punitives when they behave egregiously- in some cases, the law provides for trebles. Egregious acts of patent trolling should have the same penalty.
Many states have consumer protection laws with pretty strong teeth. Many of them also have a "loser pays" clause in there to prevent frivolity. Something tells me if they did this in the event of certain infringements, you wouldn't see as much chicanery.
Secondly, I don't mind abbreviated patent rights for biotech and software, as both areas are more rapidly changing and more abstract than other patent areas. However, in return, there should be a "rocket docket" process for getting issues involving such technology to- and through- court.
Statute of Limitations and/or Repose. Currently, a patent's enforceability is its term plus 6 years. Set a 5 year limitation and a 10 year repose. In cases involving bad faith, it'll be unlimited, and subject to treble damages and a criminal penalty.
State courts have things like associate circuits and limited actions to dispose of smaller matters in short order. If you lose at that level, you can always appeal to the district or circuit court. There should be something like this for infringement. Smaller issues of infringement can be dealt with administratively. The idea of losing small at the administrative level instead of big in Fed Court might be incentive for some infringers to give in. The concept of an administrative review for smaller matters, coupled with "losers pay" in Big Boy Court might give Plaintiffs in infringements incentive to take advantage of the smaller court, and even possibly settle.
Cuban is correct in assertion that the patent system is too clogged up. He errs in thee solutions he proposes, because they take away many of the incentives essential to the systemt itself. Instead, what the system needs are less incentives for committing industrial espionage, and lesser rewards for large companies that wage attrition wars against smaller entities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)