There are lots of cases in which two or more people invent the same thing at pretty much the same time. However, by a quirk of law, if you happen to file a patent claim even a day before anyone else, it's game over. The patent is yours.1 Alex Tabarrok, riffing off an example in which Kelly and Pat invent something independently, thinks this is crazy:

Independent invention should be a defense in a patent infringement lawsuit. An independent invention defense would allow Kelly to exclude imitators but would prevent Kelly from excluding an independent inventor such as Pat.

Inventors should not have to pay to use their own ideas! An independent invention defense is not only just, it also has good economic properties. An independent invention would create more competition. On the one hand, this does reduce the “pot of gold” incentive to create new ideas, the winner of a patent race might have to sell as a duopolist rather than a monopolist. In this case, however, there are several reasons why we wouldn’t expect the number of ideas to fall and innovation could even rise.

Several pragmatic reasons follow, but allow me to make a different argument. Patents are supposed to be issued for genuinely innovative inventions, and simultaneous discovery is a pretty practical way of deciding whether something really is innovative. If Alice patents, say, a set of finger gestures for use on touchscreen computer tablets, and for the next five years no one independently submits a similar patent, that's a pretty good indication that Alice genuinely came up with a creative, innovative idea that she deserves to reap some rewards from. However, if Bob and Carol independently submit similar patents within a few months, that's a pretty good indication that the idea was "in the air." It's not something that's really all that innovative, it's just that no one gave it a lot of thought until cheap touchscreens became commercially available. Once they did, it became obvious that consumers would need a lexicon of finger gestures to control them and so a bunch of people started creating them.

We can argue about the details. How similar do the patents need to be? How much time has to elapse before you can no longer claim independent discovery? Etc. But the basic principle is simple. Alex is right that there are practical reasons that a system like this would spur innovation, which is supposed to be the point of the patent system. However, it also appeals to a point I made earlier about IP law: that it's also about our moral sense that inventors deserve to reap the benefits of their creations. If independent invention is recognized, then genuinely innovative inventors reap the sole rewards, as they should. But if it's really just a workaday solution to a workaday problem, then they have to share the rewards. And that's fine, because it appeals to our native sense of fairness. The patent system is supposed to reward sparks of genius; it's not supposed to be a lottery.

1Technically, this is the system in every country except the U.S., which uses a "first to invent" standard. However, this doesn't really affect the argument about simultaneous invention, and in any case we'll be switching to a "first to file" system next year. So don't let the details get in the way of the broader point here.

The Last Debate

I sort of watched the Republican debate tonight. That is to say, I did watch it. The TV was on, and my eyes were pointed in the appropriate direction. But I only sort of paid attention. Something tells me I don't really have to explain why.

Anyway, what this means is that I'm going to outsource my commentary to a pair of Andrews. First, Andrew Sprung:

When the discussion turns to foreign policy, there is nothing these three won't say to inspire the fear and hatred they think will push themselves past their rivals for the nomination and ultimately tear down Obama. Nothing. Romney says that Obama caved to the Russians — in negotiating a treaty that six former secretaries of state and George H.W. Bush supported as a fit renewal of the START treaty. Santorum asserts that Obama could have made the Green Revolution in Iran a success, when the merest hint of concrete U.S. support for any group in Iran is toxic. Gingrich tells the audience "you live in a world of total warfare" at a time when a lower proportion of humans is dying by violence than ever before in human history. Santorum builds Iran into a global threat of supersoviet proportions. Gingrich justifies a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran — with unstinting U.S. support — purely on the basis of what Israelis might "think" Iran will do if it ever gets a nuclear weapon.

Gingrich, finally, always one to take the crown in demagoguery, delivers the coda: under Obama, "as long as you're an enemy of America you're safe." And Romney, outdone as usual in potency of demagogic phrasing but never behindhand in his will to smear and lie, immediately agrees.

This was pretty much the only part of the debate that really penetrated my weariness. But the reason has more to do with body language and CNN's directorial decisions than anything the candidates actually said. What struck me was that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich acted like a trio of bobbleheads whenever the subject was foreign policy. All disagreement suddenly disappeared. Whenever the camera cut away, they were watching attentively, nodding along appreciatively, and all but mouthing "good point" at whatever the speaker was saying. There wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between them. The mutual admiration was so total it was almost embarrassing.

And now, Andrew Sullivan:

Maybe I've lost my mind after all these debates, or maybe I secretly want him to win (because he would finally expose all the insanity that has been building in this party and needs venting). But I thought Santorum was on form tonight. My sense is that he will not lose his current momentum after tonight. I didn't feel Newt tonight. Romney doesn't wear well. Paul was great and funny and human.

I'm in a state of profound indecision about this. Should I root for Santorum, for exactly this reason? Because he'll really and truly represent the insanity the Republican Party has descended to, and provide us with a Goldwater moment that might shock them back into sensibility? Or is that juvenile and dangerous? After all, there's always a chance he could win.

I don't know. I just don't know. But it's hard not to feel that America really needs a long, hard look into the id of the Republican Party, and then needs to decide if that's where it wants to go. Santorum, even if he has no other redeeming features, at least provides us with that.

Here's a cool infographic. It shows (most of) the U.S. interstate highway system in the style of a London tube map. Click to enlarge. Click here to see the original version, which allows an even closer look.

Mitt Romney has released his new tax plan, and it calls for a 20 percent across-the-board reduction in income tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, repeal of the AMT, and a 30 percent cut in the corporate tax rate. Not to worry, though. It's designed to be revenue neutral because…it's going to…um…something. I really don't know how you get revenue neutral out of all this. I suppose by claiming that lower taxes will supercharge the economy and pay for themselves. That's the usual wheeze, anyway.

Okay, so rich people will pay a lot less in taxes. But how about spending? Well, Romney says he plans to reduce spending by $500 billion in 2016. However, he doesn't want to cut defense. He thinks that Medicare and Social Security reform should only affect "younger generations," so he doesn't plan to cut either of those either, at least not in the medium term. And interest on the debt is obviously outside his control.

So what's left? Domestic discretionary spending. But Romney has no actual proposals here. He wants to repeal Obamacare, but Obamacare is fully funded and repealing it won't save any money. He wants to block grant Medicaid, but that won't save any money either. It's just a different funding mechanism. And he wants government to operate more efficiently. Roger that.

So that still leaves us with $500 billion to cut out of the $1.7 trillion currently projected in domestic spending for 2016. How do you do that? Either with a 30 percent across-the-board cut or with smaller cuts to some programs and larger cuts to others. But which ones? Those are pretty big reductions. I wish guys like Romney had the guts to actually tell us where they want these cuts to fall, but they never do.

So this all seems like so much smoke and mirrors. But on the bright side, his plan for corporate taxes actually has some promise. In theory, anyway. He wants to lower the statutory rate, which would be okay if it's done along with broadening the base. He wants to make the R&D tax credit permanent, which is a good idea. And he wants to shift to a territorial taxation system, where corporations are taxed only on the income they earn in the United States. With proper regulation, this is a perfectly fine idea too.

Now, in practice, Romney says he wants to broaden the corporate tax base but doesn't say how, nor does he suggest any interest in the kind of rules it takes to make a territorial system work. But you never know. Those are potential negotiating points. It's not impossible that Romney's corporate tax plan could end up on the positive side of the ledger.

One of the interesting things about the rise of Rick Santorum is that it's giving a lot of people their first up-close-and-personal look at some of the more — what to call them? — unorthodox beliefs that animate American movement conservatives. They really do believe that we liberals support prenatal testing because it's a good way of ensuring that Down's Syndrome kids are all aborted. They really do believe that widespread contraceptive use has led directly to dissolution and cultural decay. They really do believe that "freedom of worship" is a dog whistle used by President Obama to indicate his contempt for religious liberties. They really do believe that global warming is just a hoax designed to allow lefty elites to seize control of the means of production.

And they believe that Europe is a post-socialist hellhole run by Godless bureaucrats and doomed to disintegrate. For example, here is Rick Santorum peddling a common myth:

In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.

This Soylent Green version of life in the Netherlands attracted my attention because I ran across it a while back and took the time to look into it. I'm not going to bother digging up all the references a second time, but basically this is totally untrue. The bracelets don't exist. Euthanasia accounts for only about 2% of all deaths in the Netherlands. And Dutch safeguards are, in fact, quite effective. No system is perfect, but virtually no one in the Netherlands is euthanized without explicit, repeated requests — and the tiny number of violations of the rules are mostly technical. No one is allowed to die who doesn't want to.

But the Dutch myth persists, and Santorum is doing nothing more than repeating something that's a commonplace in movement conservative circles. Glenn Kessler, whose family is originally Dutch, provides all the facts here. Not that it will make any difference. These myths simply never die, and the movement conservative machine has already produced dozens of defenses of Santorum's statement. They want to believe in the secular annihilation of everything traditional and decent, so they're going to believe whether it's actually true or not.

Ed Kilgore points me today to a quirky new PPP poll that asks people if they have favorable or unfavorable views of the various states. Hawaii gets the highest number of favorables and Illinois gets the lowest. However, if you look at the delta between favorable and unfavorable, my poor home state ranks last (27% favorable vs. 44% unfavorable). It turns out that a lot of this is driven by partisan animus:

Democrats’ favorite states include Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Colorado, and New York, and their least favorites are led by Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. Republicans love Alaska and Texas, and absolutely hate California, followed distantly by Illinois and Massachusetts.  So the greatest partisan gap is for California, which Democrats like 91 points more than Republicans do, followed by Texas, which is favored more by Republicans by 82 points.

Black voters dislike 10 of the 14 Southern states.

Frankly, I'm surprised so many people even have opinions at all. I mean, Hawaii, sure. Everyone loves Hawaii. But 51% of the respondents expressed an opinion about South Dakota. Who the hell has an opinion about South Dakota? Beats me. In any case, the chart below shows all 50 states ranked by the number of people who feel favorably toward it. How did your state do?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the only justification for limiting campaign expenditures was "corruption or the appearance of corruption." And since independent expenditures, including those from corporations and unions, don't have any kind of corrupting influence, there's no justification for limiting them.

Many of you will have two responses to this:

  • Really? That's what Citizens United said? I never heard about that.
  • Really? That's ridiculous. How can the court just unilaterally declare that unlimited money doesn't lead to corruption?

Both of these are legitimate reactions. The first because the court's handwaving on corruption got a lot less attention than all the fuss over Citizens United granting corporations free speech rights on a par with individuals. And the second because the court didn't really bother justifying its belief that independent expenditures don't corrupt the political process. It just said there wasn't enough evidence of corruption to survive strict scrutiny and left it at that. However, Rick Hasen notes that a recent case involving a Montana law that limits campaign expenditures prompted a statement from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggesting that she wants to use the case to expose this for the specious reasoning that it is:

The Montana court [] upheld a state ban on corporate campaign spending, finding that Montana's history of corruption justified the ban…Everyone expects the Supreme Court to reverse the Montana case, likely on a 5-4 vote. But the big question is how the court will do so.

…Justice Ginsburg agreed that staying the Montana ruling was the right course, because lower courts are bound to apply Supreme Court precedent even if it is wrong; it is for the Supreme Court to fix its own wrong precedents. But then she added these words in a statement for herself and Justice Stephen Breyer with respect to the stay: "Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court's decision in Citizens United…make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.' A petition [to hear the case] will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."

…The statement in Citizens United that independent spending cannot corrupt or undermine the public's confidence in the electoral process is a fiction which defies common sense. In fact, the greatest danger of super PACs is not that they will influence the outcome of elections, but that contributions to these groups will skew public policy away from the public interest and toward the interest of the new fat cats of campaign finance. The public, too, seems greatly concerned about money this election season.

It's probably unlikely that the Montana case will lead to a reversal of Citizens United. But at least it will force the court to tackle the least defensible part of its reasoning head on.

I just happened to see these two charts back-to-back this morning, so here they are in one spot. The first shows that industrial production in Europe is continuing a steep decline. The second shows that industrial orders have picked up a bit after a big fall in September. So which is more important? More informative? More predictive? Is Europe crashing or is Europe stabilizing a bit after a scary spell last year? Is the difference an artifact of a decline in exports? Exchange rate woes? Something else? As usual, it would be great if we just had another few months of data. It always is. 

James Pethokoukis is the latest conservative to demand that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner resign. Finally, something left and right can agree about! Lefties all hate Geithner too.

So what's his offense this time? Answer: a plan for cutting corporate income tax rates that's far too timid. Here are a few of the eight reasons this is a terrible idea:

The Obama-Geithner plan would lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent....So instead of having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the United States would probably be fourth behind Japan, France, and Belgium.... To pay for the lower tax rate, Obama would eliminate "dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies"....Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand how harmful corporate taxes are....Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand who bears the burden of corporate taxes. It’s workers....Obama and Geithner would take the top individual tax rate to 40 percent, leaving a 12 percentage-point gap with the corporate tax rate. This creates a huge incentive for tax sheltering.

Wow! That's quite a bill of particulars. But you know what's amazing? In this entire thousand-word blast Pethokoukis apparently doesn't have room to explain the distinction between statutory tax rates and effective rates. But it only takes a sentence or two, so here it is. The statutory rate is the top rate in the tax table. Right now it's 35% for corporations. The effective rate is what corporations actually pay after their accountants are done combing the tax code for deductions and loopholes. The former is one of the highest in the world. That latter has been falling for years and is now one of the lowest.

That's right! The actual federal income tax paid by corporations is one of the lowest in the world. Even if you think statutory rates are more important, surely this is germane to the conversation?

I say this as someone who's on record as favoring a complete abolition of the corporate income tax — primarily because tax receipts from corporations are so low that I'm not sure they're worth the bother anymore. Of course, I also acknowledge the need to make up the revenue elsewhere, since I don't believe the supply-side fairy will magically do this for us. This would indeed create tax sheltering issues that might be insurmountable. Or might not. But in any case, you need to make up the revenue. It won't happen automatically, no matter how often Arthur Laffer pretends it will.

UPDATE: Pethokoukis hauls out several strained studies that try to prove American corporations actually pay some of the highest taxes in the world. Sorry. The only way to do an apples-to-apples comparison is to look at corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP and to let a neutral party apply a consistent methodology. The OECD does exactly that every year. Here's a chart showing the corporate tax burden from 1982 through 2005. The United States is a little below the middle of the pack.

And here's their latest chart. Our corporate tax burden has fallen dramatically since 2005, and if you read all the way to the end you'll now find the United States at the very bottom.

Ezra Klein directs our attention today to the chart on the right, from a mobile analytics company called Flurry. Their basic story is simple: the blue bars show how much of our media consumption time is spent on various platforms (TV gets 40% of our time, print gets 6% of our time, etc.), while the green bars show how much money advertisers spend on these platforms. The verdict is clear: mobile devices command 23% of our time but are getting only 1% of the advertising dollars.

Now, this data comes from a company that has a vested interest in hyping the mobile audience, so obviously you want to take it with a grain of salt. By way of comparison, Josh Marshall recently told us that TPM gets about 20% of its hits from mobile devices, and this is from an audience that's very tech savvy and very mobile-friendly. But if it's only 20% for TPM, the number for the population-at-large isn't likely to be more than 10%. Or maybe even 5%.

(Of course, there's a difference between hits and time spent. Maybe mobile users spend a lot more time per visit than web users or radio listeners. But I'd need to see some evidence for that.)

In any case, clicking through to various links, it appears that there are about 100 million smartphone users in the United States and they spend about an hour a day on various apps (that's not including phone, text, and email). Of that, about 80% of the time is spent on games and social networking. So even if the mobile market isn't quite as large as Flurry would like us to believe, it's a pretty big and growing market any way you slice it.

But now I'm curious: How much time do you spend with your mobile phone? And what do you spend that time doing?