|
Written by John Stubbs
|
|
Monday, 01 February 2010 10:27 |
|
The Global Innovation Forum on January 25, 2010 hosted 100 invited guests at the Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academies for Advancing U.S. Leadership in Clean Technology Innovation. Sponsored by IBM and Bracewell & Giuliani, the event featured keynote remarks from New York Times Columnist and Best-Selling Author of Hot, Flat and Crowded, Tom Friedman. Mr. Friedman’s remarks were preceded by a distinguished panel of clean tech innovation thought leaders: Kate Gordon, Center for American Progress; Kathleen McGinty, Element Partners; Jackie Prince Roberts, Environmental Defense Fund; Scott Segal, Bracewell & Giuliani; and Travis Sullivan, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 Guests included small business owners and Fortune 100 executives, the investment and banking community, environmental groups, think tanks, and senior staff and officials from the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and across the Administration: State, Treasury, Commerce, USTR and Executive Office of the President.
Some highlights from the evening included:
Tom Friedman, New York Times, on Chinese pollution: Every time I come to China young Chinese say to me, “Mr. Friedman, you guys got to grow dirty for 150 years – now it’s our turn.” And I say that I’m here to tell you, on behalf of all Americans, it’s your turn. Take your time. Grow as dirty as you want. Because I think my country just needs five years to invent all of the clean technologies you’re going to need before you choke to death. And then I’m going come over here, and I’m going to sell them all to you. And I’m going to clean your clock.
Scott Segal, Bracewell & Giuliani, on energy policy partisanship: When I first started in Washington, the notion that energy policy was somehow ipso-facto partisan policy was completely ridiculous. It was regional. And people were just as mad at each other based on regional lines as they ever have been on partisan lines. And I look forward to the day when the enmity in energy policy can return to its proper balance in regionalism as opposed to partisanship, because it’s really a poor fit for partisanship… If it was just divided along party lines it would be easy to call balls and strikes and frankly, I think there would be a majority to do a price signal of some sort, and to do a more expanded government program.
Katie McGinty, Element Partners, on intellectual property protection and investment: The intellectual property side is very relevant. You can only make the kind of multi-hundred million dollar investments that are required just to get a clean technology off the ground if you have some sense of staying power protected in that particular investment, so that’s an essential piece of the equation.
Kate Gordon, Center for American Progress, on importance of commercialization and manufacturing: Even if we have the IP here, if we commercialize in China, the next stages of innovation that come out of that commercialization, that come out of the testing that gets done, that come out of the input from partners and other actors, and from the manufacturers themselves, those later stages of technology can often be owned by that other country. It’s also just an enormous number of potential jobs.
Travis Sullivan, U.S. Department of Commerce, on opening foreign markets for U.S. companies: We’re spending a lot of time on [global markets] with the International Trade Administration to really prioritize finding U.S. companies that are developing good products, finding markets they can access, and ensuring that those markets are open and that they’re able to be successful in that marketplace.
Jackie Roberts, Environmental Defense Fund, on creating a price signal for carbon: It’s very apparent to a lot of the entrepreneurs on the ground, a lot of the folks around, that we really do need this price signal on carbon. It is not a partisan idea. This is a huge success that George W. Bush signed into law, using cap and trade as a market mechanism to reduce pollution. We now need it on a different kind of pollutant than sulphur dioxide and others that we were looking at back then. But it is critical and something that has continued support from both sides of the aisle. The sense that this is somehow because it does have support from the current President – it also had support from his opposition in the campaign. Visit the event page here and read the full transcript of Tom Friedman's keynote remarks here.
|
|
|
Written by Global Innovation Forum Staff
|
|
Thursday, 19 November 2009 09:00 |
|
 Research and development are essential building blocks for innovation, but more and more frequently United States companies are outsourcing their R&D overseas. If the U.S. wants to maintain its technology leadership, as Vivek Wadhwa explains in a recent BusinessWeek article, we need to reinvest in worker training to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
An understanding of this R&D shift abroad is essential, and although cost savings are driving the move offshore, Wadhwa notes that companies are also going overseas to utilize global talent and to be closer to growth markets. As American companies have expanded abroad, these foreign countries have proved up to the task. R&D is now happening globally, and Wadhwa contends that new business models in America need to account for this transformation by finding ways to bring foreign innovation into the U.S.
To stay competitive and maintain our technology leadership in this expanding environment, a capable workforce is essential. Our education system is in need of an upgrade, not only in math and sciences, but also in foreign languages and culture in order to make American workers more globally aware. Within the U.S., midsize companies are most likely to continue R&D at home and less likely to move operations overseas, and the U.S. needs to policies that encourage these mid-level technology companies. Companies also need to increase their investment in workforce training – whether through scholarships or education programs within the company. Without proper skills training, R&D in the U.S. will only continue to lag.
Lastly, Wadhwa points out that our country needs a better system for harnessing the knowledge and innovation developed in our universities. Only a small percentage of lab discoveries are converted into products, and we are losing out on a major R&D resource. By capitalizing on work done in universities, the U.S. can increase the number of innovative companies developing new technologies in the U.S. that will be utilized worldwide. With a proper reinvestment in American workers and R&D at home, the U.S can continue its role as a global technology leader.
|
|
Written by Global Innovation Forum Staff
|
|
Thursday, 19 November 2009 08:00 |
 GIF Brain Trust member Joe Watson, Chair of the Marathon Club, is set to roll out a book to blueprint strategies for the unemployed, the underemployed and the “anxiously employed” to find a career with a sustainable future in a strong growth industry. In Where the Jobs Are Now, Watson identifies these industries as health care, biotechnology, education, green energy, government, security, information technology and entrepreneurship.
Obviously, this book is timely as the United States recently passed 10% unemployment. This book, and Watson’s philosophy to “treat your career as a business” is as much an analysis of the current economic environment as it is a primer for anyone to manage their career path in a post-globalization competitive economic environment. The dynamism of globalization has produced enormous efficiency gains, scientific advancement and economic wealth around the world, but at a cost of both real and existential anxiety for participants. Managing this anxiety and uncertainty involves first a recognition that it exists, and Watson may even shed some light on potential solutions for job seekers to create more certainty for their career futures.
Where the Jobs Are Now, published by McGraw-Hill, will be available in digital format this month and will hit bookstores January 2010.
|
|
Written by Global Innovation Forum Staff
|
|
Thursday, 19 November 2009 00:00 |
In a case that may have major implications for the innovation marketplace, last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Bilski v. Kappos over the legality of business method patents.
The case began when Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw attempted to acquire a patent for a process of managing risk in commodities trading but were denied by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), the examiner at PTO determined that the invention was not eligible for a patent. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. An appeal was filed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. This decision was based on precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court stating that an invention is only eligible for a patent if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. By applying this rule, it was determined that the invention did not meet either requirement, thus failing the “machine-or-transformation” test.
In the case argued before the Supreme Court on Monday, November 9th, the central issue was whether a process must pass the “machine-or-transformation” test to be eligible for a patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 101, and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test goes against Congressional intent in 35 U.S.C. §273 that patents are supposed to protect “method[s] of doing business.”
With the potential consequences of this ruling in mind, the justices posed many questions during the oral argument grappling over the right approach to this issue. The early tone suggested that it would take an inventive approach for the process in question to fit under the stipulations of the Patent Act. Various hypotheticals where suggested, from Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondering if a patent would be available for “a method of speed-dating” to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s inquiry about methods for avoiding corporate takeovers or picking a Jury. Justice Stephen G. Breyer brought up a businessman’s right to protect anything that made him his fortune, while Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wondered about creating a patent for maximizing wealth on the method of buying low and selling high. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy speculated on patent rights with regards to insurance for someone who visits the Bureau of Statistics and compiles a chart on life expectancy. The many questions posed by the justices sought to determine if ideas, business methods, or approaches, without transformation or connection to a machine, fall within the bounds of the Patent Act. While the petitioner, J. Michael Jakes, acknowledged that patent law does exclude some things, he responded that some of these hypotheticals could potentially qualify, arguing that if something is “a novel and unobvious method, then it should be patentable.” Justice Stevens stated that no cases have agreed with the rule advocated by the petitioner, yet Jakes posited that the courts have not yet ruled on this subject matter.
Justice Breyer indicated that there are four items to consider when making this ruling that are accepted in patent law, two positive and two negative. The positives are providing a monopoly that encourages people to innovate, as well as disclosure of the new invention. The negatives include higher prices and the slowing of progress because of the requirement of obtaining permissions. In the past this applied with respect to machines, and now the petitioner is asking that it be applied to information. Justice Breyer indicated that he doesn’t know whether “patent protection will do no harm or more harm than good.”
The Respondent, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, argued that the rule announced by the Federal Circuit is not “rigid or inflexible,” but instead indicates that you have to “identify some link to a machine or transformation of matter.” Stewart acknowledged the difficult nature of questions that could arise in the future, but noted that the test could accommodate difficult questions and allow for exceptions to the “machine-or-transformation” test.
Stewart was pressed on a comment in the final footnotes of the merits brief, where it stated that Bilski’s process might satisfy the Federal Circuit test if they had used a computer network, thus linking it to machine implementation. Chief Justice Roberts was concerned that this contradicted Stewart’s argument thus far, and simply tying a method to a computer could promote form over substance. Stewart clarified that the computer could not just be used to crunch numbers, it needs functionality it didn’t have before. Stewart asked the court to keep its decision narrow, citing a comment by Justice Ginsburg that the case could be “decided without making any bold steps.”
As we track the creation, trade, and solutions for innovation in the United States, this is a case that should be closely monitored as it has vast implications for patent law within the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
|
