E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

January 27, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a81b00a4970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PatentSim Study Revisited: Patent Expertise Equalizes Innovation in Patent and Non-Patent Systems:

Comments

All the comments previously mentioned about the faultiness of the program still apply.

Changing the user set won't change the fact that the program cannot and does not reflect Real Life.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how drastic a change in results might occur if the user pool was not students at all, but rather patent professionals in the appropriate field of art.

The study is still flawed. If you did the same study with real property, you would get the same results. But there is no real world evidence that the world is better with real property law. In addition, the study’s definition of commons give the participants more control over their technology than any real world contract or other law allows.

The study needs to be repeated with experienced executives who are responsible for decisions, not students with no accountability to shareholders or investors.

They should have added at the end of claim 1: wherein the current patent system is revealed as largely being a bunch of bunk.

or perhaps:
wherein said user realizes that currently patents have a negligable effect on innovation and starve the economy of profits; and wherein the user becomes concerned about this.

Oh and someone should tell them that "system" claims have to fit within one of the stat classes and cannot overlap two of them.

"an administrator module;"

is presumptively a structural limitation.

" wherein said user puts together an invention object, using two or more invention elements from an invention repository or some other source;"

Is obviously a method step.

"Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how drastic a change in results might occur if the user pool was not students at all, but rather patent professionals in the appropriate field of art."

Innovations would go up by .00000000000001 and profits would dip by 500%+.

Ouch Kev,

Trainwreck free from me - sorry that you will still have to put up with utter nonsense from 6.

All the other posts are correct - no matter who uses a flawed model, the results still are tainted. As it is, the simulation is but a game and there is no useful signal to be gleaned from the results.

The authors' definition of "innovation" is flawed. In the study, "innovation" is defined to be nearly synonymous with "invention." Few credible economists would define innovation in this limited way, as it fails to account for the expense of developing the invention into a marketable product. For example, there's a big difference between discovering that compound X inhibits enzyme Y and developing an oral dosage form for safely delivering an effective amount of compound X to a human being.

As Posner and Landes point out, the goal of patent protection is not merely to generate more inventions. Rather, it is to permit the inventor (or her assignee) to have a capitalizable property interest, which can be used to attract the funding necessary to transform the invention into an innovative product.

This study should be retitled: "If we pretend that patent law operates like copyright law, then we find that 'patent' protection does not generate significantly higher levels of invention." Doh!

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30