Patent law is usually justified on utilitarian grounds. To be sure, significant contrary views have appeared in recent scholarship. For example, Professor Robert Merges’ work provides a partly Lockean account of intellectual property. The dominant view, nonetheless, is that the rules of patent law serve consequentialist goals of inducing
invention, commercialization, and disclosure. In support of this view, scholars often cite the moribund state of the “moral utility” doctrine and the Constitution itself, which empowers Congress to enact
laws that would “promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts.”
Professor Tun-Jen Chiang’s forthcoming article, “Competing Visions of Patentable Subject Matter,” challenges this account as a descriptive matter insofar as it relates to the judicially recognized exclusions from patentability.
Patent & IP blog, discussing recent news & scholarship on patents, IP theory & innovation.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Frakes & Wasserman on Time-Crunched Patent Examiners
Posted by
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Next in my CELS IP recap: Melissa Wasserman (Illinois) presented Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents?: Evidence from Micro-Level Application Data (coauthored with Michael Frakes at Northwestern). I was delighted to serve as the discussant for this paper, which is the latest in a series of outstanding empirical projects by Frakes & Wasserman on patent examination.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Abrams et al. on Patent Value and Citations
Posted by
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Next up in my CELS IP recap: David Abrams (Penn) presented Patent Value and Citations: Creative Destruction or Strategic Disruption? (with Ufuk Akcigit & Jillian Popadak), for which Browyn Hall served as the discussant. This paper addresses one of the key quandaries of innovation policy: how do you measure innovation?
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
CELS Recap Part 1: Laboratory Experiment on the Effect of Competition on Innovation
Posted by
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
This past weekend I was a discussant at the 9th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) at Berkeley. There were two IP sessions with three papers selected for each, and over the coming days, I'll provide short recaps. First up: Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) presented The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Economics (co-authored with Philippe Aghion, Lea Cassar & Holger Herz). They designed laboratory games between pairs of student subjects who could "invest" in R&D to test competing theories of the effect of competition on innovation. In the competitive environment, a subject had to be ahead to earn a payoff; in the non-competitive environment, tied subjects could also earn a payoff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)