How German Patent Law Cripples Innovation and Curbs Consumer Choice

Patent protection laws aim to incentivize innovation and to allow the inventor and investor to benefit financially from their invention.

Furthermore copycats that free ride someone else’s invention shall be legally prevented from doing this for a set amount of time.

But patent laws in many countries, Germany among these, have helped incentivize an entirely new industry that actually causes the opposite of what patent laws intended to do.

German patent law, and especially how German courts interpret it, disincentives innovation and most start-ups claim that it makes innovation harder.

Germany is the only country that applies so-called Orange Book Laws. Orange Book Laws bundle an entire set of patents into technology standard (e.g. the mobile phone data standard 3G) and obliges every company that uses such a standard in one of their products to compensate any holder of patents listed in that standard.

The problem lies in the nature of these bundles; even if the product does not use certain patents that are defined in that bundle, it still has to compensate owners of these patents.

Technology firms have to proactive proof in court that they explicitly don’t use these patents in order to get away without paying for license fees and potential fines. Prior to winning such an argument the company usually has to go through an injunction put on them by the patent holder.

In order to understand why some companies are actually focusing their business on merely holding patents and suing companies that use industry standards (bundles) it is important to understand what these ‘patent trolls’ are up to.

Read the rest at CapX…

How Immigrants Boost Your Local Economy

Immigrants create jobs for native-born American workers, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The paper says every immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, raises wages for native workers, and attracts native-born workers from elsewhere in the country.

The paper was authored by Gihoon Hong, with Indiana University South Bend, and John McLaren, with the University of Virginia. Hong and McLaren used Census data from 1980-2000 to reach their conclusions.

The arrival of immigrants increases the combined income of a local area, boosting demand for workers in local service jobs, part of the non-traded sector. Hong and McLaren found that these types of local service jobs create more than four-fifths of total income, so immigration to a local area requires more service workers.

“We find that new immigrants tend to raise local wages slightly even in terms of tradeables for jobs in the non-traded sector while they push wages down slightly in the traded sector, and that new immigrants seem to attract native workers into the metropolitan area,” Hong and McLaren wrote. “Overall, it appears that local workers benefit from the arrival of more immigrants.”

Read the rest at The Washington Examiner…

Why Millennials Are Afraid of “Scary Ideas”

On April 20, libertarian feminist Christina Hoff Sommers was escorted off Oberlin’s campus by administration-provided police concerned about her safety.

The cause for concern? The fact that she was on campus in the first place.

When the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians announced they had invited Sommers to speak, activists quickly got to work. They posted that the event made them feel “unsafe” and started splattering her lecture hall with signs that said “Christina Hoff Sommers and OCRL Support Rapists” and “Free Speech: Just Because It’s Legal Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Problematic.” Most offensively, they hung a large poster listing past and present Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians members’ names under a note that screamed, “Rape Culture Hall of Fame.”

Needless to say, those activists “interrupted and booed” Sommers throughout her speech. Now, there are rumors that they’ll file a Title IX complaint.

In a recent New York Times article, Judith Shulevitz argues that college students are “cocooning” themselves from triggers and offensive ideas in order to achieve “guaranteed psychological security.” Christina Hoff Sommers’ Oberlin experience–and the growing number of stories like it–are only a small sample of this self-protectionism stemming from nouveau-feminism on college campuses.

For some, stories like these are almost repulsive. How can these self-proclaimed feminists feel “unsafe” over a speaker presenting new ideas? How can they relegate to the back burner far more tangible examples of violence and oppression against women — the wage gap, contraceptive issues, domestic violence, sexual trafficking, representations of women in media — in favor of a speaker, a tasteless clothing item, and whether clapping triggers anxiety?

Many are claiming that this nouveau-feminism stems from an overwhelming culture of left-intellectualism and progressivism on college campuses. But that’s not the whole picture, and maybe not even a part of it–college liberalism is hardly a new phenomenon.

To really explain the self-protectionism of college feminism, you have to look at the history of how Generation X dealt with the “rape crisis” on campus while they were in school, and how they raised their Millennial children to react to dangers differently than they did.

Read the rest at Rare…