Barrons picks up “So much for ‘One and Done’ ”

Bol_logo_top_page_1
>

I hadn’t noticed (until an emailer pointed it out) that Barron’s picked up So much for "One and Done"

Fed Head Fake: One and Done?

March 28: So much for "One and Done." In raising rates the expected quarter- point, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that they are likely to keep increasing short-term rates for the next few meetings. They threw a little bit of a head fake in there, noting, "Economic growth has rebounded strongly in the current quarter, but appears likely to moderate to a more sustainable pace."

Traders who left their feet on that were disappointed. By itself, that statement might have been a sign that the Fed was all but finished — which would have been the fuel sending the bulls racing to new heights. A moderating economy on a glide path to a soft landing would not require additional monetary tightening.

But as George Mason University taught UConn, you have to play to the end of the game. In FOMC terms, that means reading to the end of the statement, where they shifted their focus to energy prices, noting the "potential to add to inflation pressures."…Like the Huskies, the One and Done Squad is now eliminated from contention. Better luck next year.         

>

>

Source:
MARKET WATCH 
A Sampling of Advisory Opinion
ANITA PELTONEN
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006   

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB114384838268514067.html

Category: Media

6 Strategies for Q2

Category: Markets, Psychology, Trading

Saturday NYT: Lots for everyone!

Category: Financial Press

“The squalls never matter until they hit”

Category: Federal Reserve, Inflation, Investing, Markets, Psychology

Barron’s on the Kirk Report: The Anti-Cramer

Category: Financial Press, Trading, Weblogs

Senate Battleground States

Category: Politics

Myhrvold on Patents

Category: Intellectual Property

At the Margins

Category: Commodities, Economy, Retail

Media Appearance: Kudlow & Company (3/30/06)

Category: Media

Rise of the Pure Patent Business Model

Back in December 2004, I wrote a column titled "Five Under-the-Radar Trends for 2005". One of the below radar trends I predicted was the acceleration of intellectual property lawsuits. That turned out to be rather prescient.

There are actually two different issues here: The first is, should the USPO
be issuing so many patents, especially those for business methods? Amazon’s One-click buying, and MercExchange’s Buy it now auction are certainly questionable "inventions." That’s an issue for Congress, who needs to adequately fund the Patent Office so they can hire many more patent examiners, rather than merely have an under staffed patent office rubber stamp applications.

The second issue is that once a patent becomes issued, who gets to use it and how? Very often, we see the first issue inappropriately raised as a PR defense in the second. I don’t get the sense that all of the financial media really has a firm grasp on this. There is an entire world of patents, innovation, USPO issues, and large corporate litigants that have not been adequately discussed. Some get it, some don’t. Compare  this story: "eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls" with this one "In Patent Case, EBay Tries To Fight Its Way Out of Paper Bag." (For some intercorporate litigation, see Apple against Apple Corps. Ltd., and TiVo’s against EchoStar’s Dish Network).

Incidentally, the term "Patent Troll" was invented by Peter Detkin when he was defending a patent case against Intel. Ironically, Detkin is now managing director with Intellectual Ventures, an intellectual property firm suing patent infringers.

If you recognize the property right inherent in patents, then the term "Patent Troll" is quite meaningless, meant to stir up political opposition to patents. How you use your property is irrelevant to the property right attached to it. What does it matter if you choose to manufacture widgets — or merely license the patent to thos ethat do? 

What is actually going on now is a massive land grab underway by large corporations, looking to keep the fruits of entrepreneurs and innovators labor for themselves. These are not meek and vulnerable entities at the mercy of lawyers; rather, these are very astute players seeking to use the patent to further their own goals — often at the expense of innovation.

Take Intel, where Detkin was vice president and assistant general counsel, for example. They are certainly no stranger to patent litigation. As the book Inside Intel makes clear, INTC used its patents as a club to thwart competition in the CPU market for decades. That’s why its taken AMD so long to become a legitimate competitor to the chip giant.

The stealing of entrepreneurial innovation by large firms is fairly common place. My own experience with patent enforcement is that it is an enormously expensive, difficult, time consuming venture, fraught with peril. Consider the case of Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittant windshield wiper. In 1967, he received several patents on his design, which he tried to license to the Big 3 in Detroit. They sent him
packing, but later the intermittant windshield wiper somehow found its
way into autos. Long story short, he ended up in litigation for decades before finally winning. Thats decades later.

Read More

Category: Financial Press, Intellectual Property, Technology, Web/Tech