This article from CNN is amazingly funny, and not in a good way -

Recession's latest victim: U.S. innovation

Patent filings fell in 2009 for the first time in 13 years, worrying Silicon Valley that it is losing its place as the leader in global innovation.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. innovation slowed this year for the first time in 13 years as the recession cut into budgets, and costs to protect inventions rose.

The number of patent filings in the United States fell 2.3% in 2009 to 485,500 from 496,886 last year, according to a preliminary estimate by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That makes 2009 the first year since 1996 in which businesses and inventors filed fewer patents year over year.

"That's unfortunate because [patent filings] are a reflection of innovation," said David Kappos, director of the Patent Office. "Innovation creates so many jobs and so much opportunity for our country. It is absolutely key to our long-term success in the global economy."

Most blame the recession for the drop in U.S. filings. As a result, many companies are opting to hold off on bringing new ideas to market until the economy improves substantially

Read the whole article here.

Patently-O's reaction:

"I tend to attribute huge rise in patenting activity over the past two decades more to a perceived strengthening of the patent right and less to an actual increase in innovations. In recent years, court decisions and threatened action from congress may have reduced the perceived potential value of the patent right -- thus lowering demand. Perhaps now, applicants are filing fewer 'junk' patents."

I suppose when there is an astronomical increase in patent applications for the past decade-plus, any minuscule decrease is supposed to be from a lack of 'innovation', as though patent applications should be expected to automatically increase exponentially every year - just like housing prices.

So-called 'performance reports' from the Patent office going back roughly 15 years can be found here.

"That's unfortunate because [patent filings] are a reflection of innovation," said David Kappos, director of the Patent Office.

Has David Kappos considered that even if this were true, a diminishment in a reflection can be because of a smudge on the mirror as well as can be because of a diminishment in the thing being reflected?

In all likelihood, it's actually the effects of Bilski already being felt. Those Supreme Court justices seem very skeptical of the value of software and business method patents in their recently published ruminations, and it's quite plausible that businesses are holding off on filing more similar patents until the Supreme Court hands down a ruling and they know for sure which way the wind is blowing.

P.S. is that anonymous coward in that other thread that douchebag Lonnie E. Holder? I think I recognize his quoting style. If so, it will be amusing to watch Nobody hand him his patent-loving ass on a platter in another verbal fencing match. The only thing that would amuse me more would be Beeswax doing the same thing to him. So ... pass the popcorn?

Not to be picking nits, but it seems like the graph you present shows a linear increase in patent filings rather than exponential. I assume that the exponential was a slip of the typing fingers? According to a recent post on Techdirt, innovations in the high tech industries have been increasing exponentially, but patent filings have not according to your chart.

You are indeed picking nits Anonymous. I was using a rhetorical flourish to point out the very true fact that IP-maximalists desire and expect a yearly increase in patents that is far greater than should be expected in a rational world. I'm sure most people who read the post understand this, even if you don't.

Mr. Levine:

You seem to style yourself as an academic. I assume your purpose is to educate and inform, if not yourself, then others. When you deliberately exaggerate differences, especially when such exaggerations are beyond the realm of reason, you not only are not educating and informing, you are using a soapbox to further a personal agenda. Are you an academic or are you a rabble-rouser whose only interest is inciting others to a frenzy?

Suzzle:

Ah, I see you have stooped to name-calling. I guess when intellectual property destructionists, or destructionists for short, run short of intelligent, logica, counter-point or actual facts, they resort to name-calling. Way to show your true colors!

Incidentally, I have noted with hilarity that you and Beeswax, and I think Nobody as well, have all accused several people of being me. I believe you may have accused as many as three different people of being me. Again, hilarity. Against Monopoly has become a comedy show. Is it any wonder that the people who post here are never taken seriously?

Ah, using your real name again? Well, it doesn't matter. When you post as anonymous your style and pattern of rhetoric give you away every time.

Suzzle:

Is that why you keep getting me confused with other people? Keep doing your standup routine. It gets a lot of laughs!

Actually, I haven't gotten you confused with any other people. I've simply spotted your sock puppets.

Suzzle:

You just keep thinking that and I will keep on getting laughs.

That last post was mine. I do not come here often enough to remember to type my name...

As have I. And, apparently, Nobody and Beeswax.

I've noticed. And, apparently, so have Nobody and Beeswax.

@suzzle

"it's actually the effects of Bilski"

Exactly, I'm glad I'm not the only one to see this :)

As I have said, if the USSC overturns Bliski there will be a flood of asinine patents at the USPTO within a week. This will (as proven over and over again) hinder the US market for decades to come. Maybe we deserve it...

Though some complain because the drop in filings has cut into their profits, perhaps it's a positive turn of events, in some ways. Maybe fewer junk patents will tie up the filing system. And, quite likely, in these past years we've been experiencing a patent law "bubble" that finally burst. In any case, I agree that innovation and patent filings, though related, are not synonymous. So, in short, I suspect that the rumors of the death of innovation have been greatly exaggerated.

A drop in the filing of patent applications is hardly an extraordinary event during a recession. Experience teaches that it is no more and no less than a typical reaction whenever money gets tight. Budgets get squeezed, and within companies this includes, inter alia, expenditures by law departments. The same can also be said of marketing, R&D, and a whole host of other functions.

One does not need to be grounded in economic theory to observe the incredibly obvious.

Mr. Slonecker:

Do not forget the other yellow journalistic rhetoric spewed forth with the velocity of vomit. "Astronomical increase" in filings (interesting term for something that is far less then the exponential increase in innovation), and then there was the use of the term "exponential" with respect to patent filings, even though the increase was linear, AND was actually quite similar to the growth in the economy. No, there are many here who either ignore actual facts or have a far smaller grasp of economics and math than they claim they have.

Pardon me, but the crap on this site makes me want to go puke...too late...gotta go barf now.

Lonnie writes:

"No, there are many here who either ignore actual facts or have a far smaller grasp of economics and math than they claim they have."

There are indeed: you and your sockpuppets.

"Pardon me, but the crap on this site makes me want to go puke...too late...gotta go barf now."

If you really hate this site that much, why continue visiting it?

Beeswax:

If you really hate this site that much, why continue visiting it?

I had not visited in some time. I was curious as to whether any of the inmates were still around. I guess the situation is worse than I expected. There are no new inmates and all the old inmates are still here. Sad, and sickening. I will try again in a few months and see if logic rears its ugly head; doubtful, but possible.

There are indeed: you and your sockpuppets.

(1) I need no sockpuppets when I have me.

(2) If you and your sockpuppets stopped visiting this site its visits would drop by 20%.

Lonnie writes:

"I had not visited in some time."

Sure you had, though you tended to only post as anonymous. Your unchangeable pro-IP views combined with your use of bold to quote gave you away every time though.

"[insult deleted]"

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"[insult deleted]"

You're the only one here with sockpuppets.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Beeswax:

Not that it is all that important, but note that Justin Levine used the same quoting style I did. Indeed, many people do. A quoting style is not an indicator of who the person quoting might be.

Beeswax, would I call you crazy? Nah. That is merely your delusions of paranoia kicking in. You really should get that treated.

Have I said anything nasty about you? Certainly I do not think so.

Our resident troll writes:

"A quoting style is not an indicator of who the person quoting might be."

Not by itself, perhaps, but in combination with other factors...

"[insults deleted, including calling me a liar]"

No, you're the liar and the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.