The Sound and Fury of Patent Activity

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Robin C. Feldman, Mark A. Lemley
{"title":"The Sound and Fury of Patent Activity","authors":"Robin C. Feldman, Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3195988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patent reform is a hotly contested issue, occupying the attention of Congress, the Supreme Court, and many of the most innovative companies in the world. Most of that dispute centers on patent enforcement, and in particular on the role of non-practicing entities (NPEs) or “patent trolls” – companies that don’t themselves make products but sue those that do. To technology companies, NPEs are a drag on innovation, taxing them tens of billions of dollars every year while achieving no social purpose. To NPEs and their supporters, they are enabling the first inventor to get paid and creating a working market for the transfer of technology. \n \nWhich is it? \n \nIn this paper, we present the first full empirical study of the effect of patent licensing demands on the economy. With the help of a National Science Foundation grant and experts in survey design, we sent our survey out to every US-based business with at least one employee and revenue of $1 million or more – over 45,000 companies. Our results provide important insights into the nature and limits of patent licensing demands and their role (or lack thereof) in driving innovation. \n \nWe find that NPE licensing demands almost never lead to innovation by the target firm. None of the indicia we would expect of real technology transfer were common in patent licensing demands. Moreover, NPE demands were particularly unlikely to be accompanied by the sharing of know-how or employees, the creation of joint ventures, or the development of new products. \n \nNPEs do not seem to be a monolithic group. The results for certain types of NPEs were more promising. Federal labs that assert patents are the group most likely to transfer knowledge or drive new products when they license patents. University patent demands are more likely to drive innovation than demands by other sorts of NPEs, but most of them still don’t involve any indicia of technology transfer. We also find that the patent system works differently in different industries. Patent licensing demands almost never result in technology transfer or new innovation in the computer industry, particularly when NPEs are doing the asserting. They are somewhat more likely to be productive in the life sciences, but it is areas like energy that see the most new products resulting from patent assertions. \n \nFinally, and perhaps most important in the long run, a significant majority of respondents simply didn’t face patent licensing demands at all. It is true that those companies may be smaller and less innovative than the ones that do face licensing demands. But given the raging debates over the patent system and its role in driving the economy, it is important to recognize that there are large swaths of American business that simply don't deal with patent licensing demands at all.","PeriodicalId":47393,"journal":{"name":"Minnesota Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.3195988","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minnesota Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3195988","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Patent reform is a hotly contested issue, occupying the attention of Congress, the Supreme Court, and many of the most innovative companies in the world. Most of that dispute centers on patent enforcement, and in particular on the role of non-practicing entities (NPEs) or “patent trolls” – companies that don’t themselves make products but sue those that do. To technology companies, NPEs are a drag on innovation, taxing them tens of billions of dollars every year while achieving no social purpose. To NPEs and their supporters, they are enabling the first inventor to get paid and creating a working market for the transfer of technology. Which is it? In this paper, we present the first full empirical study of the effect of patent licensing demands on the economy. With the help of a National Science Foundation grant and experts in survey design, we sent our survey out to every US-based business with at least one employee and revenue of $1 million or more – over 45,000 companies. Our results provide important insights into the nature and limits of patent licensing demands and their role (or lack thereof) in driving innovation. We find that NPE licensing demands almost never lead to innovation by the target firm. None of the indicia we would expect of real technology transfer were common in patent licensing demands. Moreover, NPE demands were particularly unlikely to be accompanied by the sharing of know-how or employees, the creation of joint ventures, or the development of new products. NPEs do not seem to be a monolithic group. The results for certain types of NPEs were more promising. Federal labs that assert patents are the group most likely to transfer knowledge or drive new products when they license patents. University patent demands are more likely to drive innovation than demands by other sorts of NPEs, but most of them still don’t involve any indicia of technology transfer. We also find that the patent system works differently in different industries. Patent licensing demands almost never result in technology transfer or new innovation in the computer industry, particularly when NPEs are doing the asserting. They are somewhat more likely to be productive in the life sciences, but it is areas like energy that see the most new products resulting from patent assertions. Finally, and perhaps most important in the long run, a significant majority of respondents simply didn’t face patent licensing demands at all. It is true that those companies may be smaller and less innovative than the ones that do face licensing demands. But given the raging debates over the patent system and its role in driving the economy, it is important to recognize that there are large swaths of American business that simply don't deal with patent licensing demands at all.
专利活动的喧嚣与骚动
专利改革是一个备受争议的问题,占据了国会、最高法院和世界上许多最具创新性的公司的注意力。这些争议大多集中在专利的执行上,尤其是非执业实体(npe)或“专利流氓”的角色——这些公司自己不生产产品,但会起诉那些生产产品的公司。对科技公司来说,npe拖累了创新,每年向它们征收数百亿美元的税收,却没有实现任何社会目的。对于npe及其支持者来说,它们使第一个发明者能够获得报酬,并为技术转让创造了一个有效的市场。是哪一个?在本文中,我们首次对专利许可需求对经济的影响进行了全面的实证研究。在美国国家科学基金会(National Science Foundation)的资助和调查设计专家的帮助下,我们向美国所有至少有一名员工、收入在100万美元以上的企业——超过4.5万家公司——发送了我们的调查。我们的研究结果对专利许可需求的性质和限制以及它们在推动创新方面的作用(或缺乏作用)提供了重要的见解。我们发现,NPE许可要求几乎从未导致目标公司的创新。在专利许可要求中,我们所期望的真正技术转让的指标都不常见。此外,NPE的要求特别不可能伴随着专有技术或雇员的分享、合资企业的创建或新产品的开发。npe似乎不是一个单一的群体。某些类型的npe的结果更有希望。主张专利的联邦实验室在授权专利时最有可能转移知识或开发新产品。与其他类型的npe相比,大学的专利需求更有可能推动创新,但它们中的大多数仍然不涉及任何技术转让的指标。我们还发现,专利制度在不同行业的运作方式不同。专利许可要求几乎从未导致计算机行业的技术转让或新的创新,特别是当npe提出主张时。他们更有可能在生命科学领域取得成效,但像能源这样的领域,专利主张产生的新产品最多。最后,也许从长远来看最重要的是,绝大多数受访者根本没有面临专利许可要求。的确,这些公司可能比那些面临许可要求的公司规模更小,创新能力更弱。但考虑到围绕专利制度及其在推动经济发展中的作用的激烈争论,重要的是要认识到,有很大一部分美国企业根本不处理专利许可要求。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: In January 1917, Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the Minnesota Law Review with lofty aspirations: “A well-conducted law review . . . ought to do something to develop the spirit of statesmanship as distinguished from a dry professionalism. It ought at the same time contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” For the next forty years, in conjunction with the Minnesota State Bar Association, the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School directed the work of student editors of the Law Review. Despite their initial oversight and vision, however, the faculty gradually handed the editorial mantle over to law students.
×
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