Don't File for That Patent Yet (Entrepreneur.com)

Instead of a utility patent, a provisional patent or a trademark could be a better first step.

By Tamara Monosoff   |   February 08, 2010

Two great tools for inventors that won't break your bank account: provisional patent applications and trademarks.
Successfully licensing an invention or taking a product to market requires research and the ability to talk to people about your invention. It is impossible for a manufacturer or retail buyer to commit to a product without seeing it.
For good reason, many inventors are reluctant to share their invention with people they don't know. Further, once an invention is shared publicly, international patent rights can be lost, and the one-year timeline within which a U.S. patent application must be filed generally has begun to tick. For this reason, many inventors rush out and file a full-blown, utility patent application. That addresses the uncertainties and also enables inventors to alert people that their invention is "patent pending."
However, this approach has several downsides. First, utility patents and even patent applications can cost many thousands of dollars. In the end, an inventor may find that the expense outweighs the benefit. Second, in the early stages, most invention designs are still evolving. Filing a patent too early could mean that it doesn't actually reflect the most evolved designs and drawings. Third--and most important, in my opinion--this investment has been made before an inventor has conducted real market research to validate marketability of the product.
Two solutions that many inventors--myself included--use are to file provisional patent applications and trademark applications for the invention and product name or logo.
These applications provide the best of both worlds. At a fraction of the cost of a utility patent application, a provisional patent application is not actually a patent. It never will convert to a patent or become public, unless further action is taken. A provisional patent application is a like a place holder. In essence, you are laying claim to the filing date of the provisional patent application if and when you elect to file for a full utility patent up to one year from the time you file your provisional patent application. So if you choose to file a provisional patent application on March 1, 2010, and you then choose to file a utility patent application eleven months later on February 1, 2011, the priority date for your utility patent application would be considered to be March 1, 2010, for all material substantively disclosed and enabled in your provisional application.
What does this mean?
From the date you file your provisional patent application, you have the legal right to write "patent pending" on your prototype and show it to whomever you wish. In the process, you will not lose your international patent rights and can still elect to file your utility patent application. But it gives you one year to develop your product and gain market information before you actually must make the final decision on whether to file utility and/or international patent applications.
So, how do you do this?
While technically you can write and file this application yourself, I recommend that you do it  with some guidance and, at the least, a review by a registered patent attorney or agent.
There are three things to be careful about when writing a provisional patent application, according to intellectual property attorney Stuart West, founding partner of West & Associates:

1. Ensure that the application meets the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, by adequately describing not only the components of your invention and their connections, but also the operation of the invention.
2. Avoid using limiting or restrictive language in your written description, such as "must," "necessary," "essential" or other similar phrases.
3. Be accurate but broad with your descriptions. For example, if a nail is holding together two pieces of wood, an accurate but broader description of the nail would be a "fastener,"  or you may simply state that one piece of wood is coupled with the second piece of wood.

The second best--and still underutilized--legal tool for inventors, in my opinion, is the federal and various state trademark registration systems. Here's why:
Every product has a name, or it should. Once you begin using the name with prospective licensees and customers, the invention actually becomes synonymous with the name. I have seen this happen over and over. And there are only so many names an item could take that meet the criteria of being both catchy and able to be registered.
So give as much thought to names for your product as possible, and include questions about the name in your market research. Once you settle on your preferred name, trademark the name. Then when you speak with prospective licensees, use the name. (Note: I did not say you should tell them you are hooked on the name). But if they become accustomed to your product's name, they will see your trademark as another valuable asset you are bringing to the table. Plus it may further limit potential encroachment from likely competitors or knockoff products.

West says there are two things to understand about trademark use:

1. The underpinnings of trademark law are founded on the principle of first in use, first in right. Filing of a trademark application typically constitutes use, but so does simply using the trademark. In fact, in some states you must use the trademark publicly before filing a trademark application, and in the federal trademark system, a trademark must be used in interstate commerce before it can register. Therefore, use your trademark.
2. Once you've settled on and adopted your trademark you should identify it as a trademark by using either TM or ® as appropriate. Check your local state laws regarding the use of TM.

In most states, trademark rights can be asserted regionally for free, simply by applying the ™ to a product (done by typing the letters "t" and "m" between two parentheses. The writing program automatically shrinks and raises it to have the ™ appearance.)
Second, a trademark can be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office and overseas. This is a faster process, taking only 10 to 14 months. Once it is registered as a U.S. federally registered trademark, use the ® (also typed by inserting the "r" between parentheses).
I have always said that intellectual property, patents, trademarks and copyrights are just tools in your inventing tool box. Using the right tool can be extremely valuable. The nicest thing about a provisional patent application is that it can buy you time to figure out which other tools may be necessary. Likewise, trademarks are a valuable tool inventors overlook.
Tamara Monosoff is the founder and CEO of mominvented.com, where entrepreneurs get information and inspiration to turn their ideas into successful businesses. Tamara is the author of The Mom Inventors Handbook, Secrets of Millionaire Moms and co-author of  The One Page Business Plan for Women in Business.

Corporate Backing for Research? Get Over It (NYT)

By JOHN TIERNEY

I find myself in the unfamiliar position of defending Al Gore and his fellow Nobel laureate, Rajendra K. Pachauri.
When they won the prize in 2007, they were hailed for their selfless efforts to protect the planet from the ravages of greedy fossil fuel industries. Since then, though, their selflessness has been questioned. Journalists started by looking at the money going to companies and nonprofit groups associated with Mr. Gore, and now they have turned their attention to Dr. Pauchauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The I.P.C.C., which is supposed to be the gold standard of peer-reviewed climate science, in 2007 warned of a “very high” likelihood that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. When the Indian government subsequently published a paper concluding there was no solid evidence of Himalayan glaciers shrinking because of global warming, Dr. Pachauri initially dismissed it as “voodoo science” beneath the I.P.C.C.’s standards.
But then it came out that the I.P.C.C.’s projection was based not on the latest peer-reviewed evidence, but on speculative comments made a decade ago in a magazine interview by Syed Hasnain, a glaciologist who now works in an Indian research group led by Dr. Pachauri.
Last week, the I.P.C.C apologized for the mistake, which was embarrassing enough for Dr. Pachauri. But he also had to contend with accusations of conflict of interest. The Telegraph of London reported that he had a “worldwide portfolio of business interests,” which included relationships with carbon-trading companies and his research group, the Energy and Resources Institute.
Dr. Pachauri responded with a defense of his ethics, saying that he had not profited personally and that he had directed all revenues to his nonprofit institute. He denounced his critics’ tactics: “You can’t attack the science, so attack the chair of the I.P.C.C.”
I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches.
But I do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.
Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with. Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having their own finances investigated.
But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?
One reason is laziness. It is simpler to note a corporate connection than to analyze all the other factors that can bias researchers’ work: their background and ideology, their yearnings for publicity and prestige and power, the politics of their profession, the agendas of the public agencies and foundations and grant committees that finance so much scientific work.
Another reason is a snobbery akin to the old British aristocracy’s disdain for people “in trade.” Many scientists, journal editors and journalists see themselves as a sort of priestly class untainted by commerce, even when they work at institutions that regularly collect money from corporations in the form of research grants and advertising.
We trust our judgments to be uncorrupted by lucre — and we would be appalled if, say, a national commission to study the publishing industry were composed only of people who had never made any money in the business. (How dare those amateurs tell us how to run our profession!) But we insist that others avoid even “the appearance of impropriety.”
This snobbery was codified by The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, when it essentially required chaperones for any researchers receiving corporate money. Citing “concerns about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored research,” the journal refused to publish such work unless there was at least one author with no ties to the industry who would formally vouch for the data.
That policy was called “manifestly unfair” by BMJ (formerly The British Medical Journal), which criticized JAMA for creating a “hierarchy of purity among authors.” The hierarchy looked especially dubious after a team of academic researchers (not financed by industry) analyzed dozens of large-scale clinical trials in previous decades and reported that industry-sponsored ones met significantly higher standards than the nonindustry ones.
The new fetish for disclosing “conflicts” has led some of the best medical researchers to shun drug company money altogether — not because they think it leads to bad research, but because they are tired of that fact being highlighted every time they are identified in a news story, as if that were the most important thing to know about their work.
There are, of course, notorious cases of corporate money buying predetermined conclusions, like the reports once put out by the Tobacco Institute to rebut concerns about smoking and cancer. But there has also been dubious work promoted by government agencies and foundations eager to generate publicity and advance their own agendas.
It’s naïve to caricature scientific disputes as battles between “industry” and the “public interest,” as if bureaucrats and activists didn’t have their own selfish interests (and wealthy, powerful allies like trial lawyers). Too often, corporate conflict-of-interest accusations have been used as smear tactics to silence scientists who ended up being correct. (Go to nytimes.com/tierneylab for examples.)
Instead of stigmatizing certain kinds of research grants, perhaps we should consider the bigger picture. If scientists listed all their public and private donors on their Web pages, journalists could simply link to that page and let readers decide which ones are potentially corrupting. Instead of following rigid rules to report “conflicts,” journalists could use their judgment and report only the ones that seem relevant.
Sometimes you can’t understand a debate or a controversy without knowing who is paying whom. But in general, I’m with Dr. Pachauri: follow the science, not the money.

How to encourage big ideas (MIT News)

Photo - Graphic: Christine Daniloff

 

A new study suggests certain types of funding — which provide more freedom and focus less on near-term results — lead to more innovative and influential research.

 

Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office

December 9, 2009

Scientists are much more likely to produce innovative research when using long-term grants that allow them exceptional freedom in the lab, according to a new study co-written by MIT economists.

The work shows that biologists whose funding encourages them to take risks and tolerates initial research failures wind up producing about twice as many highly influential papers as some peers whose funding is dependent upon meeting closely defined, short-term research targets.

“If you want people to branch out in new directions, then it’s important to provide for their long-term horizons, to give them time to experiment and potentially fail,” says Pierre Azoulay, an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and an author of the study. “The researcher has to believe that short-term failure will not be punished.”

The results are contained in a working paper released this fall, “Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences,” by Azoulay, Gustavo Manso, an assistant professor at Sloan, and Joshua Graff Zivin, an associate professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego.

The researchers believe their evidence shows it is possible to manage lab work in a way that increases the chances that scientists will produce breakthrough findings, not just incremental advances within an established paradigm. “You can generate innovation, but the details matter,” says Azoulay. “What you want to provide incentives for is future performance, not performance today.”

The study appears as science funding has recently risen in the United States, in part through the stimulus bill Congress passed in 2009, which provided about $20 billion for research. Not counting stimulus money, President Barack Obama still included a slight increase in federal support for science as part of his proposed 2010 budget, which asks for about $148 billion for research and development. In April, Obama suggested that scientific funding should equal 3 percent of America’s economic production. Azoulay says he and his colleagues would like to instigate a discussion about not only how much money should be spent on research, but how those funds should be managed.

Measuring creativity

Azoulay, Manso, and Graff Zivin arrived at their conclusions after comparing researchers using two distinct types of funding: support from the investigator program of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the large non-profit biomedical research organization in Maryland, and the R01 grants of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the federal government’s life-science center in Maryland. The HHMI support lasts five years and is often renewed; the program “urges its researchers to take risks … even if it means uncertainty or the chance of failure.” The HHMI also provides a two-year buffer of support after funding is terminated. The NIH grants last three to five years, have more specific aims, and cease immediately if not renewed.

The researchers identified 73 life scientists given HHMI support in three years — 1993, 1994, and 1995 — and tracked their work through 2006. Because these scientists were quite well-regarded before getting HHMI funding, the study compared them to groups of similarly accomplished scientists receiving NIH grants: one group of 393 scientists who had received early-career prizes, and another group of 92 scientists receiving the NIH’s MERIT funding, awarded to highly promising projects.

Among other things, Azoulay, Manso, and Graff Zivin analyzed how often these scientists published articles that were among the top 5 percent or top 1 percent of the most cited papers in their fields. They also studied “creativity” in lab research by seeing how often the scientists began using new keywords to describe the subjects of their articles.

Their findings show that compared to the early-career prize winners with NIH grants, the HHMI-funded scientists produced twice as many papers in the top 5 percent in terms of citations, and three times as many in the top 1 percent. Compared to the NIH-funded scientists with MERIT grants, the HHMI group produced about the same quantity of papers in the top 5 percent by citation, but 50 percent more papers in the top 1 percent.

The study also found that the HHMI investigators had about 10 percent more variety in the keywords they introduced into their own work than the early-career prizewinners from the NIH, and were cited in a greater range of journals. Additionally, the HHMI-backed scientists mentored more early-career prize-winning scientists themselves (1.13 per person) compared to the NIH-funded group (0.24 per person).

Avice Meehan, vice president for comunications and public affairs at HHMI, says the study reflects the fact that over the last two decades, “HHMI has identified highly creative scientists and given them the freedom to pursue critical medical research, even if it takes them years, and means a change of research direction.”

The view from the NIH

The researchers acknowledge that measures such as keywords are imperfect indicators of creativity, but think such tools are a reasonable way of identifying originality in the lab. “There are as many definitions of creativity as there are people studying creativity,” acknowledges Azoulay. “But ultimately creativity is measured in especially good outcomes.” 

Azoulay, Manso, and Graff Zivin also emphasize that their work is not an institutional critique of the NIH. “The conclusion of our paper is not that the NIH should transform itself into a version of the HHMI,” Azoulay adds.  Their larger point simply concerns the effects of different types of grants. If major discoveries are not unanticipated events, but influenced by the underlying funding, policy-makers could consider that point when allocating research dollars.

Moreover, the civic value of science often comes not only from an initial breakthrough, but later incremental refinements of it. In those cases, shorter-term, narrower research provides significant social benefits. “It’s an outstanding question what the actual mix of exploration and exploitation we need is,” Azoulay notes.

Don Ralbovsky, an NIH spokesperson, said a staff member in the NIH’s Office of Extramural Research had looked at the paper and described it as “interesting,” but would refrain from further comment until the paper appears in final published form.

In recent years, the NIH has developed multiple types of funding beyond the traditional R01 grants. The Pioneer Award, founded in 2004, is a grant for “highly innovative new research approaches,” to be given to seven scientists in 2010. The New Innovator Award is for 33 early-career investigators in 2010, emphasizing “innovation and potential impact.” And in 2008, the NIH established Transformative Research projects Awards, making $25 million available for “bold and creative investigator–initiated research.” All of these grants last five years, instead of three for the standard R01 grants.

Azoulay agrees that the existence of a variety of types of grants can help science as a whole. “A division of labor might benefit of the entire research ecosystem,” he says. The HHMI’s Meehan concurs: “It’s important for the nation to have a comprehensive research portfolio that encompasses many approaches and mechanisms.” (This research was funded in part by the Kauffman Foundation and the Science of Science Policy Program of the National Science Foundation.)

One long-term goal of Azoulay’s work is “to bring randomized trials to science policy.” By comparing two groups over time, this study attempts to replicate the lab-trial method, albeit with historical data, and shed more empirical light on a subject often discussed anecdotally.

“This is the first word on the topic, not the last,” concludes Azoulay.

James Surowiecki on business, the markets, and the economy (New Yorker)

Here's an interesting interview that discusses a few of the current problems around innovation: education and incentives (min 16:00).

This is a solution that could/should be further closely examined in both the US and in PR if both countries are serious about continuing (and introducing it in the case of PR) development of innovation in their respective economies.


Summary:

James Surowiecki speaks with Dan Vasella, the chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical company Novartis AG, about the current state of the industry, the company’s shift away from the traditional model of profitability, and the growing influence of countries such as China, where Novartis plans to open a billion-dollar facility. They met last month at the Harvard Business School.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/12/video-dan-vasella.html#ixzz0ZbdGJkPf

Recession's latest victim: U.S. innovation (CNN)

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.

By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: December 11, 2009: 10:34 AM ET

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."
At the same time, U.S. patents issued to inventors and businesses in foreign nations jumped 6.3% for the year. That's a worry for Silicon Valley, which has been a global leader for decades.
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.
"Our patent filings were down 25% this year, and it was a direct macroeconomic issue," said Joe FitzGerald, deputy general counsel for tech security firm Symantec. "The overall company reduced spending, and patent filings are a very controllable expense. We might have filed four patents, but we filed three and made sure they were strategically significant."

Cost constraints

The application, processing and legal fees average about $15,000 per patent, but the cost to defend those patents in court after they've been granted typically runs between $3 million to $6 million, according to Bijal Vakil, partner in White & Case's intellectual property team in Palo Alto, Calif.
"Once you have a patent, you also have to go out and defend your own turf," said Henry Nothhaft, chief executive of Tessera, a San Jose, Calif.-based company that licenses its electronic miniaturization technologies to consumer electronics companies. "That has become more expensive lately due to the complexity of technology and globalization of economy, and it has caused some products not to come to market."
It could also become disruptive to American businesses down the road as filings from abroad pick up.
"We are in a dire economic situation, so its not unreasonable for businesses to have to cut their budgets," said Vakil. "But this trend could spell financial ruin for some U.S. companies. We've lost our competitive edge, and other companies from other countries stand to benefit."
If that trend continues, it could also spell trouble for the American worker, especially given the weak U.S. labor situation. The Obama administration has contended that the economic rebound will rely on innovative U.S. companies to hire workers to develop new technologies and ideas like clean energy and smart transit systems.
"Our top priority is to see jobs get created, and we need patents to get through the patent office to help create those jobs," Kappos said.

The system is broken

Pushing patents through the system is easier said than done: The decline in filings this year has brought to light a number of problems with the antiquated American patent system.
The Patent Office does not receive any taxpayer money. It is completely funded by fees levied on patent filing, processing and awarding. The Patent Office also hasn't changed its fee structure in decades, so it continues to charge a flat rate (roughly $1,000) for patent applications, regardless of the idea's complexity or the amount of work that needs to go into processing the patent.

0:00 /0:53Nokia sues Apple

As filings have dropped off, so too has the Patent Office's revenue, which sank by $200 million in 2009. As a result, the Patent Office has initiated a hiring freeze, stopped all overtime, cancelled a necessary IT upgrade and has lost between 40 and 50 patent examiners every month this year, said Kappos.
That means longer wait times for patent approvals and a growing backlog of filings. Currently, there are 740,000 patents pending, with an average wait time for approval of 40 months. The Patent Office isn't even able to look at applications for three years because of the backlog. That's an eternity for tech inventions, which tend to cycle through product generations in a year or so.
Ultimately, it creates a vicious cycle, since a large lag time only further discourages patent filers.
"People are looking at the system as it is now, and they're saying that waiting 40 months for a patent may not be worth it," said David DiMartino, spokesman for the Coalition for Patent Fairness, a group representing major Silicon Valley companies' desires for patent reform.
Another discouraging trend has been the rise in patent disputes. By June, there were already 15% more "post-grant" patent reviews filed by competitors to the filing company than there were in all of 2008.
Those cases are expensive to defend, and are sometimes used by large companies to delay smaller companies' technologies from coming to market or to prevent them from being released at all, according to Brian Pomper, executive director of the Innovation Alliance, a coalition of mostly small high tech companies in support of strong intellectual property rights.
As a result, the Patent Office, lawyers and companies alike are clamoring for patent reform. Bills in the House and Senate, which are on schedule to be passed in the spring, would give the Patent Office the authority to adjust its patent fee structure and give juries direction on setting awards for patent disputes, among other reforms.
Some advocates argue that the bills are far from perfect, particularly because they could make it easier for big companies to repeatedly bring smaller innovators to court. But for the most part, businesses and government officials are eager for Congress to act.
"The American innovative spirit is stronger than ever. If we're able to get patent reform through, we absolutely can take processing times way down and get innovations through to the marketplace," said Kappos, who estimates that legislation will help reduce the average wait time to as little as one year. 

delanceyplace.com 11/20/09 - innovation

And the question remains, what is Puerto Rico has done and is doing to ride this wave of innovation?

As to what PR has done? Evidently very little as more than 90% of what is consumed in PR is manufactured elsewhere. Additionally, the industry of intellectual property is virtually non-existent in PR.

As to what PR is doing? I haven't heard of any government policies to foster innovation or promote the manufacturing of local products.

As to what can be done? A good place to start could be Jane Jacob's concept of "import replacements" (more information here).

In today's excerpt - historically, 85% of the increase in per capita GDP (gross domestic product or wealth) in the U.S. economy has come from innovation - the
invention of new products and services or the invention of better ways to make existing products and services. It follows that any durable and sustainable
program to create jobs in an economy would focus foremost on innovation:

"Since the 1950s, economists have understood that innovation is critical to economic growth. Our lives are more comfortable and longer than those of our great-grandparents on many dimensions. To cite just three improvements: antibiotics cure once-fatal infections, long-distance communications cost far less, and the burden of household chores is greatly reduced. At the heart of these changes has been the progress of technology and business.

"Economists have documented the strong connection between technological progress and economic prosperity, both across nations and over time. This
insight grew out of studies done by the pioneering student of technological change, Morris Abramowitz. He realized that there are ultimately only two ways of increasing the output of the economy:

(1) increasing the number of inputs that go into the productive process (e.g., by having workers stay employed until the age of sixty-seven, instead of retiring at sixty-two), or

(2) developing new ways to get more output from the same inputs.

Abramowitz measured the growth in the output of the American economy between 1870 and 1950 - the amount of material goods and services produced - and then computed the increase in inputs (especially labor and financial capital) over the same time period.

To be sure, this was an imprecise exercise: he needed to make assumptions about the growth in the economic impact of these input measures. After undertaking this analysis, he discovered that growth of inputs between 1870 and 1950 could account only for about 15 percent of the actual growth in the output of the economy. The remaining 85 percent could not be explained through the growth of inputs. Instead, the increased economic activity stemmed from innovations in getting more stuff from the same inputs.

"Other economists in the late 1950s and 1960s undertook similar exercises. These studies differed in methodologies, economic sectors, and time periods, but the results were similar. Most notably, Robert Solow, who later won a Nobel Prize for this work, identified an almost identical 'residual' of about 85 percent. The results so striking because most economists for the previous 200 years had been
building models in which economic growth was treated as if it was primarily a matter of adding more inputs: if you just had more people and dollars, more
output would invariably result.

"Instead, these studies suggested, the crucial driver of growth was changes in the ways inputs were used. The magnitude of this unexplained growth, and the fact that it was exposed by researchers using widely divergent methodologies, persuaded most economists that innovation was a major force in the growth of output.

"In the decades since the 1950s, economists and policymakers have documented the relationship between innovation - whether new scientific discoveries or incremental changes in the way that factories and service businesses work - and
increases in economic prosperity. Not just identifying an unexplained 'residual,' studies have documented the positive effects of technological progress in areas such as information technology. Thus, an essential question for the economic future of a country is not only what it produces, but how it goes about producing it.

"This relationship between innovation and growth has been recognized by many governments. From the European Union - which has targeted increasing
research spending as a key goal in the next few years - to emerging economies such as China, leaders have embraced the notion that innovation is critical to
growth."

Josh Lerner, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Princeton, Copyright 2009 by Princeton University Press, pp. 43-45.

Tinkering Makes Comeback Amid Crisis (WSJ)

By JUSTIN LAHART

The American tradition of tinkering -- the spark for inventions from the telephone to the Apple computer -- is making a comeback, boosted by renewed interest in hands-on work amid the economic crisis and falling prices of high-tech tools and materials.
The modern milling machine, able to shape metal with hairbreadth precision, revolutionized industry. Blake Sessions has one in his dorm room, tucked under the shelf with the peanut butter on it.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology junior has been using the mill to make prototypes for a bicycle-sprocket business he's planning. He bolts down a piece of aluminum plate, steps to his desk and, from his computer, sets the machine in motion.

Tinkering With Technology

View Slideshow

Alex Welsh for The Wall Street Journal

Jason Euren, an anthropology student at the New School University in Manhattan, worked with a soldering kit at the Brooklyn hackerspace Resistor recently.

• More photos and interactive graphics
• Econ: Innovation's Role in the Economy

"It's kind of a ridiculous thing to have," says Mr. Sessions, 20 years old. But "in today's marketplace you can't only offer a technical aptitude. You have to be able to provide something more."
Occupying a space somewhere between shop class and the computer lab, the new tinkerers are making everything from devices that Twitter how much beer is left in a keg to robots that assist doctors. The experimentation is even creating companies. With innovation a prime factor in driving economic growth, and corporate research and development spending tepid, the marriage of brains and brawn offers one hopeful glimmer.
Engineering schools across the country report students are showing an enthusiasm for hands-on work that hasn't been seen in years. Workshops for people to share tools and ideas -- called "hackerspaces" -- are popping up all over the country; there are 124 hackerspaces in the U.S., according to a member-run group that keeps track, up from a handful at the start of last year. SparkFun Electronics Inc., which sells electronic parts to tinkerers, expects sales of about $10 million this year, up from $6 million in 2008. "Make" magazine, with articles on building items such as solar hot tubs and autopilots for robots, has grown from 22,000 subscribers in 2005 to more than 100,000 now. Its annual "Maker Faire" in San Mateo, Calif., attracted 75,000 people this year.
"We've had this merging of DIY [do it yourself] with technology," says Bre Pettis, co-founder of NYC Resistor, one of the first hackerspaces, in Brooklyn. "I'm calling it Industrial Revolution 2."

Journal Community

• discuss

“ Maybe it's time to bring my old white board out of retirement, and rethink some of those old projects. ”

— Richard Tomalewicz

The financial crisis played a role in taking a nascent trend and giving it increased urgency, says Michael Cima, an MIT engineering professor. "I've been here 23 years and I definitely see this trend back to hands-on," he says. "A lot of people are pretty disappointed with an image of a career in finance and they're looking for a career that's real."
Access to the tools to tinker is getting easier. "Computer numerical controlled," or CNC, tools -- which cut metal and other materials into whatever design is plugged into the computer attached to them -- now cost as little as a tenth of what they did a decade ago. Mr. Sessions, the MIT student, says he first looked at such mills on a lark, assuming the price would be well out of his reach. But his mill cost about $7,000 to buy and set up.
He sees the bike-sprocket business as a springboard for developing more complex products, such as a device to increase mobility for arthritis sufferers or an energy-efficient car transmission. He thinks his interest in tinkering will give him an advantage in a global marketplace.

"If it doesn't have that creative aspect to it, it may not be worth doing, because your job can be outsourced," he says.
Innovation in the U.S. is peppered with examples of tinkerers who started out small, but came up with big ideas, says Naomi Lamoreaux, an economic historian at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The really dynamic times in our history are times when you have lots of ordinary people who think they have a chance to make a difference."
Through much of the past century, however, developing new products required increasingly complex and expensive tools that were out of reach of most individuals -- the Wright brothers built an airplane in their bicycle shop, but the first jet-powered aircraft were built at well-funded corporate and government labs. As a result, large firms came to dominate innovation.
That trend was disrupted in the 1990s when low-cost computers allowed Internet and software start-ups to compete with giants. But when it came to developing innovative physical products, high prices kept high-tech machine tools and materials out of most tinkerers' reach.
"There have always been hobbyists, but it was really hard to go from being a hobbyist who built hot rods to becoming a car company," says Erik Kauppi, a member of at A2 Mech Shop, an Ann Arbor, Mich., workshop where tinkerers pool tools they own. "But now, all of a sudden a guy or a couple of guys have a lot more leverage."
The electric scooter that Mr. Kauppi, who is 49, developed at the workshop is now in production. His business, Current Motor Co. in Scio Township, Mich., plans to begin shipping its scooter, with a starting price of $5,500, this month.
At engineering schools, the drop in costs is putting tools once accessible only to senior researchers into the hands of undergraduates. The Hobby Shop at MIT, once mainly a wood shop, has been accumulating advanced equipment, some castoffs from MIT laboratories, some bought.
"Now you can build sophisticated robots and things like that with all these new pieces of equipment they have," says Greg Schroll, 23, a 2008 MIT engineering graduate.
He hopes to eventually start a company around a spherical robot he built at the MIT shop, which he sees being used to gather information in places too hazardous for humans. Projects made by MIT students in the Hobby Shop now in commercial production include a LED system to create lighting effects for film and a machine to salt the rim of a margarita glass.
Hands-on is catching on at other schools. There were 27% more undergraduates who earned mechanical-engineering degrees in 2008 than in 2003, according to the American Association of Engineering Societies. Over the same period, the number of computer-engineering graduates slipped by 31%.
Students at Carnegie Mellon University asked to stay at school for a week after exams last spring so they could hang out and build things. Ed Schlesinger, a professor there, says that after a long period where theoretical work dominated at engineering schools, "when students talk to each other now, it's 'So, what cool project are you working on?' It's not enough to say I took these classes and got an A." Stanford University's Product Realization Laboratory, where students learn machining, welding and other hands-on skills, has seen membership jump to 750 from 450 over the past five years.
As a junior at Stanford in 2004, Carly Geehr thought she was headed for medical school. Then she took a course on manufacturing and design at the Stanford workshop.
"I'd never held a drill in my life, but working with the milling machine -- I was just blown away," says Ms. Geehr, who is 24. She changed her major to engineering and, as a doctoral candidate in engineering, is now a teaching assistant for the course that gave her the bug to build. On a recent day, she cheered students on as they prepared molds for sand-casting bronze, occasionally donning a protective fire suit to skim red-hot dross from the crucible before pouring molten metal into the molds.
Giulio Gratta, a senior in Stanford's engineering school, has been using the workshop to build a panoramic camera. Even though Stanford is in the heart of Silicon Valley, he says software and Internet development don't hold as much interest as before. "It's no longer the thing to do," says Mr. Gratta, who is 21. "People have to figure out something else. Maybe...physical things."

From hacker spaces to profitable businesses, tinkering is experiencing a renaissance. WSJ's Andy Jordan explores some of the "stuff" people are making with new devices that encourage hacking and creativity.

Until the 1950s, economists thought how fast the economy grew was mostly a matter of how much money was spent and how much work was getting done. But in a 1957 paper that helped him later earn a Nobel Prize, MIT economist Robert Solow showed capital and labor only accounted for about half of growth. The remaining half he attributed to innovation -- an area where the U.S. has long had an advantage.
In recent years, however, U.S. spending on research and development has led some economists to worry that innovation will no longer provide the boost it once did. Corporate R&D spending grew an average of 2.6% annually from 2000 to 2007, down from an average of 6% in the 1980s and 1990s, according to the most recent figures from the National Science Foundation. Chief financial officers surveyed in September by Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and CFO Magazine said they expected their companies' R&D spending to grow by just 0.4% over the next year.
Tinkering represents innovation outside such figures. TechShop in Menlo Park, Calif., for example, is a for-profit workshop and operates like a gym, except that the members who pay $100 a month are milling iron rather than pumping it.
Founder Jim Newton tallied a list of all the tools he could imagine needing. Now TechShop, opened in 2006, has $500,000 worth of lathes, laser cutters and other equipment.
There are 600 members at TechShop's original location, up from 300 a year ago, and it has opened workshops in Durham, N.C., and Beaverton, Ore. Projects under way include a liquid-cooling device for computer servers and an electric two-wheeled car.
NYC Resistor, the hackerspace in Brooklyn, is funded by members and fees from classes it offers. It opens to visitors every Thursday. Recently, a group gathered around Ben Combee, who demonstrated the laser cutter. He put a piece of Plexiglas into place, started the air compressor, pushed a button and shouted, "Fire the laser!"
At a table strewn with laptops, wires and circuit boards, Eric Skiff showed off a robotic arm that twitches when a hand is passed near it. In a corner is the Barbot, a robot that, when it works, pours and stirs an absinthe cocktail called a Sazerac.
Such projects -- not to mention a giant Lite-Brite and a toy piano that plays Philip Glass's "Modern Love Waltz" -- may seem frivolous. But Zach Hoeken Smith, a NYC Resistor cofounder, thinks something important is going on. The computer kits sold by companies such as Apple in the 1970s were demeaned as toys, he says, but ended up launching the personal computer revolution.
Mr. Smith, 25, studied computer science at the University of Iowa, and worked as a Web developer. But a few years ago, he started playing with an "Arduino" -- an open-source microcontroller. These are used as the "electric brains" for everything from wall-avoiding robots to a hat that pokes the wearer's heads if the person stops smiling. "I was hooked," he recalls.
Intrigued by the idea of making a machine than can build its own parts, Mr. Smith got interested in "rapid prototyping machines" -- 3D printers that lay down layers of materials like plastic to form objects. The technology is used by manufacturers to make prototypes, with industrial machines typically costing tens of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Smith's NYC Resistor friends Mr. Pettis and Adam Mayer joined the project. Using off-the-shelf electronics and parts, along with a laser cutter, they came up with a machine. Now they're selling kits to make 3D printers.
Their company, MakerBot Industries, has shipped 350 of the $750 kits so far. They hired two employees, started paying themselves, and are building another 150 kits for their next shipment.
Adam Elkins and members of a hackerspace in Philadelphia, called Hive 76, bought one kit and built the machine. Mr. Elkins, a 28-year-old system administrator for a software company, says he doesn't have access to a lot of space, so he goes to the hackerspace to build. "There's no man-cave I can go to and do things."
The first thing he made on the 3D printer was a black plastic ring topped off with white plastic jewel. Last month, he presented it to his girlfriend, along with a marriage proposal. She said yes.
Write to Justin Lahart at justin.lahart@wsj.com