Categories
Innovation Inventors Patent Law Uncategorized

Jennifer Lawrence Movie “Joy” Highlights the Need for Patent Protection

The following guest post comes from Rebecca Cusey, a second year law student at George Mason University School of Law and a movie critic at The Federalist.

By Rebecca Cusey

Rebecca_Cusey_Headshot

There are two patents in the movie “Joy”: the one the titular character failed to get and the one for which she is willing to fight tooth and nail.

The first, for an idea she had in high school to improve dog collars, fills her with regret as she sees a similar product successfully sold in shops. As a single mother working to care for not only her children, but her extended family, Joy instinctively knows that owning that idea and marketing the product would have put her life on a different track.

When she has an idea to vastly improve the household mop, she sets out to found a new business empire on ownership of her idea. Joy has a million ideas and the passion to see them through. What she does not have is experience with patents. Her main investor, who happens to also be her father’s girlfriend, gets some bad advice from a lawyer with no patent expertise. His cursory patent search turns up an owner of a similar idea in Hong Kong and his legal advice is to pay advance royalties to this owner.

The owner’s United States representative is only too happy to take her money and, furthermore, he has connections with a factory that can make the parts for her product. A match made in heaven!

However, Joy increasingly loses confidence in the manufacturer. When she flies out to investigate, she discovers the representative is taking steps to fully patent her idea himself and freeze her out. She learns that paying him royalties may have weakened her legal claim to the patent.

That’s when Jennifer Lawrence goes all black leather and aviator sunglasses. She becomes a bad-to-the-bone (but still legal) heroine, an infringer avenger, and a crusader for intellectual property rights. Joy is going to fight to own her idea for a better mop.

The movie does an excellent job of showing why it matters. The mop is more than a mop. It is literally the roof over her kids’ heads. She has taken financial risks, put all her assets into her invention. That alone is enough, but there is more to it than that. Her lifelong dream has been to invent ways to make the world better. An innovator is who she is, down in her core. If some fly-by-night outfit can just take her idea, they take something from her that is the essence of who she is.

Sadly, perhaps, for patent lawyers, and probably only for patent lawyers, the final battle of the film does not happen in a courtroom. Joy finds, shall we say, alternate means of protecting her property. The point stands, however, in a surprisingly ringing endorsement of intellectual property rights. The idea for the mop belongs to Joy and no one has the right to take it from her.

In fact, the movie notes that, in the years after winning her first battle, Joy Mangano secured over a hundred patents. One became the highest selling product ever on the Home Shopping Network. Not bad for a girl who started with just with an idea and a dream.

Written and directed by David Russell and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Robert Di Nero, Joy is currently playing in theaters.

Categories
Biotech Commercialization Conferences Copyright Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Inventors Uncategorized

The Common Economic Case for Patents and Copyrights

This is the second in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, “Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.” The Conference was held at George Mason University School of Law on October 9-10, 2014.  Videos of the conference panels and keynote will be available soon.

The opening panel of CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference examined the common economic case for patents and copyrights. Unfortunately, IP policy discussions often include a false narrative that intellectual property produces monopolies that harm innovation and economic growth.  The panelists, Troy Dow (Disney), Professor Stan Leibowitz (University of Texas at Dallas), Jon Santamauro (Abbvie), and Professor Jay Kesan (University of Illinois College of Law), highlighted how this narrative, in fact, ignores the essential role that intellectual property serves in enabling the creation, development, and commercialization of both inventions and creative works.

Kesan explained how patents provide economic benefits from both an ex-ante and ex-post perspective. Ex-ante, a strong patent system provides incentives to create, invest in R&D, and finance further innovation. While there are other ex-ante motivations to invent (such as a first mover advantage, the ability to secure trade secrets, and reputational advantages), Kesan argued that innovation is best facilitated ex-ante by a combination of all of these incentives plus the incentives created by patents. The ideal system incorporates a heterogeneous mix of these incentives to invent—in the absence of patents the level of disclosure decreases and innovation slows down.

Patents also provide numerous ex-post benefits. Patents facilitate coordination with producers and perform important signaling functions. They additionally allow for important private ordering by giving inventors increased control over who uses their invention and under what circumstances. In many industries, this is essential to collaboration, interoperability of products, and the aggregation of complementary benefits.

Jon Santamauro discussed the role of patents in the pharmaceutical industry. The exclusive property rights created by patents encourage R&D and serve as a crucial catalyst for new discoveries and businesses.  Patent protection is particularly important in the pharmaceutical industry due to the high-risk, lengthy, and costly process necessary to develop new, safe, and effective drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs screen thousands of potential compounds over 6-7 years of testing to gain FDA approval, at an average cost of about $1.2 billion per drug. The reasons for the high R&D costs?  Out of 10,000 initial molecules tested, only 6 go to clinical trials, and of these, only 1 is approved by the FDA for use in the healthcare market.  Of the 1 out of 10,000 drugs that make it to market, only 2 out of every 10 medicines produce enough revenues to recoup the initial high costs of R&D and also provide revenue to invest in more R&D. In short, pharmaceutical and biotech firms face very high risk—high R&D expenditures and very few market successes.  Strong IP protection helps offset this risk and encourages further investment and research.

Leibowitz explained that one of the primary criticisms of copyright—that it grants a monopoly, and that monopolies are intrinsically bad for society—is utterly thoughtless. A property right is, by definition, a monopoly of sorts. This criticism is an indictment of property rights on the whole, including real property rights.  This is even more inapt to copyright, as copyright does not restrict entry and does not provide an economic monopoly.

Leibowitz also addressed the common argument that IP isn’t necessary because inventors and creators would continue inventing and creating even if they didn’t get to own the fruits of their productive labors.  While some innovative and creative activity would undoubtedly continue, many innovators and creators do not simply create for creations sake. They need salaries (like everyone else), and strong IP rights allow them to capture the value of what they produce.

Finally, Troy Dow highlighted the benefits of strong copyright protection in the movie industry. Bringing a film to market involves substantial risks that many people do not appreciate.  He explained that studios perform the same market function as venture capitalists: they invest in  films at the birth of the original idea and then provide financing all the way through the final showing in movie theaters. This financing comes from banks, other investors, or other studios in order to spread the risk. Dow analogized a new film project to a new startup company, as each new film has its equivalent of a CEO (producer), COO (director), and thousands of employees and independent contractors.  And just as with startup companies, everyone must be paid before the film makes a single cent in revenue.

A single film can cost over $200 million to produce. While a particularly big hit can gross over $350 million after long-term distribution (including on-demand and DVD sales), only 4 out of every 10 movies recoup their investment at the box office. Copyright thus serves the vital function of making it possible for studios to make substantial, upfront investments with the hope of a return on this investment and a sufficient profit to reinvest in further film projects.

Disney’s IP is enormously valuable and is the dominant driver of their business. Even though only $6 billion of Disney’s $45 billion in revenues last year came directly from movie revenue, the movies, including the stories they tell, are at the heart of the Disney experience.  The movies form the basis for other products, media networks, theme parks, and licensing. A strong copyright regime allows studios like Disney to keep producing both creative works and the myriad other products and experiences that so many of us enjoy.

Together, the four panelists illustrated that the economic foundations of IP are equally applicable to the creative industries as they are to the innovation industries.  By securing for inventors and creators the value of their productive labors, IP provides the economic bedrock of our creative and innovative economy.