Further Reflections on Extinguishing the Fountainhead of Knowledge: A Call to Transition to the 'Innovation Policy' Narrative in Patent Law

Simone A. Rose
{"title":"Further Reflections on Extinguishing the Fountainhead of Knowledge: A Call to Transition to the 'Innovation Policy' Narrative in Patent Law","authors":"Simone A. Rose","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2284237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economists are unable to provide a clear answer as to the effectiveness of the patent system in encouraging innovation. At best, they point to certain sectors, such as pharmaceutical and biotechnology, which benefit from a robust patent scheme. Conversely, sectors such as software and ironically at the same time, biotechnology, may be harmed by an overly broad patent scheme. The question that emerges is: why do the various stakeholder in all industrial sectors, Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the courts (in particular, the Federal Circuit), continue to center the development of patent law around the “innovation presumption” despite the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence to answer the fundamental question: Do patents actually create more incentive to innovate, more actual innovation and hence more economic growth? Preparing for this Symposium on the Federal Circuit, innovation and disruptive technologies has allowed me to further reflect on why it is necessary to challenge the innovation presumption and explore alternative paradigms, such as the use of innovation “policy levers” for this problematic narrative.","PeriodicalId":121108,"journal":{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"13 14","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wake Forest University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2284237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Economists are unable to provide a clear answer as to the effectiveness of the patent system in encouraging innovation. At best, they point to certain sectors, such as pharmaceutical and biotechnology, which benefit from a robust patent scheme. Conversely, sectors such as software and ironically at the same time, biotechnology, may be harmed by an overly broad patent scheme. The question that emerges is: why do the various stakeholder in all industrial sectors, Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the courts (in particular, the Federal Circuit), continue to center the development of patent law around the “innovation presumption” despite the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence to answer the fundamental question: Do patents actually create more incentive to innovate, more actual innovation and hence more economic growth? Preparing for this Symposium on the Federal Circuit, innovation and disruptive technologies has allowed me to further reflect on why it is necessary to challenge the innovation presumption and explore alternative paradigms, such as the use of innovation “policy levers” for this problematic narrative.
对熄灭知识源泉的进一步思考:呼吁向专利法中的“创新政策”叙事过渡
关于专利制度在鼓励创新方面的有效性,经济学家无法给出一个明确的答案。充其量,他们指出了某些行业,如制药和生物技术,这些行业受益于强大的专利计划。相反,像软件这样的部门,同时具有讽刺意味的是,生物技术,可能会受到过于宽泛的专利计划的伤害。出现的问题是:为什么所有工业部门的各种利益相关者,国会,专利商标局(“PTO”)和法院(特别是联邦巡回法院),继续围绕“创新假设”发展专利法,尽管缺乏理论和经验证据来回答这个基本问题:专利是否真的创造了更多的创新激励,更多的实际创新,从而更多的经济增长?为联邦巡回法院、创新和颠覆性技术研讨会做准备,使我能够进一步思考为什么有必要挑战创新假设并探索替代范例,例如使用创新“政策杠杆”来解决这个有问题的叙述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信