1 / 14

Brian Kahin kahin@umich

Patents and Diversity in Innovation. University of Michigan September 29, 2006. Brian Kahin kahin@umich.edu. treat different cases differently…. an intuitively appealing idea. but. patent policy is hard. patents  invention  innovation

enrique
Download Presentation

Brian Kahin kahin@umich

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Patents and Diversity in Innovation University of Michigan September 29, 2006 Brian Kahin kahin@umich.edu

  2. treat different cases differently…. an intuitively appealing idea but

  3. patent policy is hard

  4. patents  invention  innovation • rights-based process vs utilitarian jurisprudence and policy • policy is process-driven (law) rather than results-driven (economics) • diminishment of “invention” • problems of definition, measurement, and analysis • confusion of exclusion and exploitation • ephemeral lines: nonobviousness/inventive step, novelty (context-dependent), UCT/technicity • astronomical transaction costs – “sport of kings” but also context-dependent • most data is private; analysis is ad hoc, largely academic • extreme complexity

  5. institutional competence • autonomous process-focused patent offices • process-focused judiciary – no means of accumulating testable body of expertise • dominance by process-focused professionals • politics • multi-level capture • extreme complexity in the face of simple long-established models • small-large/upstream-downstream/principal-agent dynamics  inertia  incrementalism

  6. pressure to get policy right • importance of innovation to economic growth • comparative advantage for developed economies • patents critical in some sectors – dangerous in others • growing role (scope, scale & strength) of patents • diversity in subject matter 

  7. basic science expansion of subject matter biotech traditional subject matter complex technologies services software logic, mathematics social sciences/ liberal professions

  8. pressure to get policy right • importance of innovation to economic growth • comparative advantage for developed economies • patents critical in some sectors – dangerous in others • growing role (scope, scale & strength) of patents • diversity in subject matter • diversity in • process of innovation (e.g., collaborative innovation vs. pipeline model) • diversity in business context (globalization, information revolution, disaggregation) • diversity in business strategy and patent practice

  9. “our international obligations” [P]atents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application….  [P]atents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.” [TRIPS 27.1]

  10. TRIPS 27.1 • Industry Capture: Backdoor Industrial Policy (masquerading as trade policy) • Dangers of Diplomatic Negotiations • opaque process, uninformed, susceptible to capture • constitutional principle (not the law anywhere • preempts informed policymaking • preempts legislative engagement • Ambiguity, Uncertainty, In Terrorem Effects  Inertia

  11. We just keep replicating the old results based on the old precedents, whether they have kept pace with changes in business, changes in technology, or changes of a different sort…. [W]e just get the Federal Circuit talking to itself, with the brief writer just being the echo of what we wrote in all those prior cases. And then we write some more cases, and the cycle just goes on and on and on. And it certainly lacks the benefit of being tightly wired to the evolving reality. -- Paul Michel, [Chief Judge], CAFC, Berkeley Conference on Patent Reform, 2002

  12. FTC Hearings and Report • focus on legal and business effects showed key industry differences • documented dysfunction in practice • legitimized discontent • now manifest in patent reform • integrative: bridging economic and legal perspective at a policy level • demonstrate void in institutional competence

  13. levels of “discrimination”(differentiation?) • technology-specific: • nuclear weapons, biotech, surgical methods, business methods • judicial interpretation/application (Lemley/Burk) • transparency/institutional competence problem • “technology-neutral” economic factors • stewardship by “field of technology”

  14. stewardship • Fields of technology responsibility for optimizing performance subject to standards and oversight • parallel to professional self-regulation • danger to new entrants and future innovators • puts risk of capture out in the open • forces development of regular record, evidence-based policy

More Related