Last week, the Fox News station in Dallas ran a lengthy segment on how tort reform in Texas is affecting ordinary Texas citizens. The clip provides hard data that debunks many of the myths of tort reform, including:
Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured residents of any state in the country;
Texas citizens pay more in healthcare premiums than the average American, so any alleged savings of tort reform haven't been passed on to consumers;
The number of new doctors in Texas as a percentage of population actually lags behind the rest of the country;
Texans who can't afford healthcare for disabled children rely on Medicaid, which is funded by taxpayers; and
Texans whose family members are injured or killed by incompentent doctors and nurses have nowhere to turn.
Tort reform is bad for ordinary citizens who pay taxes, buy health insurance, and want to receive competent medical treatment. It is good for insurance companies, lobbyists, and other special interest groups who make money by shifting financial burdens to the government, instead of the parties responsible for causing financial harm to innocent people. Whose side do you want to be on?
I am raising two small children. The oldest is three, and like all children, he is learning quickly at this age. He gets excited about new things —his bedtime story earlier this week turned into an hour-long Q&A where he wanted to know everything I know about electricity. Starting with Ben Franklin to the stuff from my electrical engineering classes (which was often sleep-inducing to me during summer school) to how the stop-motion video for his trains works (see below), he just listened with wide eyes and asked tons of questions. Even with my weekend chores and our play time, he wants to know the hows and whys when he's helping. (Surely most parents are familiar with the question "Why?" 30 times in a row.) He asks all kinds of questions without shame or a preconceived notion about what the answer should be.
As a parent, I'm glad that he's interested in knowing how things work, and that he gets excited about learning how to do those new things. The play is fun, but learning how the new activity works is important so he can play and learn and ask questions when I'm not around. Teach a man to fish, as they say. And it's not just my son — all little kids like learning new things.
Which brings us to the title line, which is from Corinthians and is something my wife really enjoys. It talks about how we did things differently as children, yet now our knowledge remains incomplete. We see through the glass darkly. We don't question things, nor do we seek out new knowledge in its own right like our kids do. That's why my three year old can pick up my phone and show me how to do things I never dreamed it would do. I suspect if we thought more like children do, for knowledge itself, the glass might be a little clearer.
The people we read about in history books are the ones who weren't afraid to ask questions and then look for the answers. Of course, you're not always going to get the right answers. In many instances, you're probably not even asking the right questions.
In my work as a patent lawyer and a trial lawyer dealing with medical issues, I run into two types of people. First, there are the people who question how a product or medical test works and how it could be made better. They may try new designs, tests, or treatments. Some might not work, but usually these people wind up figuring out a creative answer that is an improvement on their practices. These folks are the innovators, the reason we have advancement in technology, science, and medicine.
Second, there are people who are resistant to things they don't understand, or don't bother to learn about new things. I've seen businessmen refuse to consider that their tech business could be displaced by the next best thing. I've also seen doctors refuse to consider strong empirical evidence of effective new tests in favor of decades-old tests with half the diagnostic resolution. Without asking questions, how do these folks know what they're doing is ultimately helpful to their customers, clients, or patients? If only those who see through the glass darkly would merely begin with the question, what if I'm wrong?
I will be presenting a CLE at the Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association in Eureka Springs, which is from May 2–4, 2012. My topic will be "Presenting Objective Evidence of Injury." It will touch on topics like digitized x-rays, CRMA, the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaulation of Permanent Impairment, and tips for dealing with junk science invented by insurance companies in the 1990's as a cover to deny claims. Hope to see you there!
This option involves talking to people in the industry about your idea before seeking patent protection. Your goal is to find out if there are any potential investors/purchasers for your idea before you invest much money. The risks here include: (1) public disclosure of your idea starts a 1-year clock ticking for you to file a patent application, and if you don’t, you cannot get a patent; and (2) industry insiders could take your idea and run with it, and you would face an uphill battle proving it was your idea in court. This is the most risky option because it provides no protection whatsoever.
Option 2 — Nondisclosure agreement
This option is similar to step 1, except that you ask the potential investor/purchaser to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDAs) before you tell them what your idea is. In the abstract, this option makes it less likely that a third party would steal your idea. However, practically speaking, you might still have to prove what you disclosed to industry insiders and that they did not already know what you disclosed to them. Many companies are unwilling to sign NDAs for unsolicited idea submissions, in part due to these proof issues. This is a reasonable option for inventors who have already identified serious potential “angel” investors (that is, investors who are not in the same field and thus have little incentive to steal the idea) or have existing partnerships with trusted associates.
Option 3 — Patent pending
The patent pending option means that you begin marketing as soon as you file a patent application. This option allows you to prove what you’ve invented to interested parties, since you’ve already submitted your idea to the patent office and have received a dated confirmation. It also avoids complications about when you disclosed your idea to the public vs. when you filed your patent application. For these reasons, the patent pending option shows that you are serious about your invention and what it takes to protect it. The downside is primarily the cost of getting a patent application on file. This option is the one taken by most of my individual inventor clients, as it represents a good balance between the risk of theft by a third party and getting your product onto the market (and making money) as soon as possible.
Option 4 — Full patent protection
The final option, securing full patent protection before marketing your product, is the least risky. It means that others will not know about your product until it is already patented. Under this situation, a potential thief of your idea would be on notice of the patent and would be subject to additional penalties in a civil patent case for stealing your idea. Most of the time, when I see this approach, it is from existing businesses whose R&D departments are coming up with ideas that are several years from production.
Nathan was recently named to the Top 40 Under 40 by the National Trial Lawyers. This group is a "professional organization comprised of America’s top young trial attorneys. Membership into The National Trial Lawyers Association: Top 40 under 40 is by invitation only and is extended exclusively to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership as a young lawyer under the age of 40. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research. The result is a credible, comprehensive and impressive list of young attorneys chosen to represent their state.
"The Top 40 under 40 is restricted to only 40 attorneys per state per year and each attorney must be under the age of 40 as of January 1, 2012. Attorneys must also specialize in the areas of civil plaintiff or criminal defense law. Each candidate must also be in good standing with the state licensing board and must never have been subject to disciplinary action."
