ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Property and Power on the Endless Frontier","authors":"Daniel M. Traficonte","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3901914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3901914","url":null,"abstract":"Much of the innovation in the American economy originates in the federal research system––the vast set of federal agencies that directly fund R&D at public research centers, universities, and industrial labs. By the time these innovations are eventually brought to market, however, they are under private control, a result of the legal framework that determines ownership rights to state-backed inventions. Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, government patent policy has been settled in favor of private ownership of government-funded innovation. Why does the government channel massive amounts of public resources into groundbreaking research, only to turn over the fruits of that research to private hands? The standard explanation suggests that the “technology transfer” consensus rests on the modern rationale that intellectual property rights are necessary to encourage back-end commercial development rather than initial investments in research. Under this justification, even though private contractors do not assume the up-front risks––as the traditional defense of patent rights holds––they may still require exclusive rights in order to turn innovations into commercializable products. This rationale posits the commercial spinoff as a chief aim of the federal R&D system, and thus emphasizes patent utilization and efficiency as leading considerations. In the leadup to the 1980 watershed, this explanation goes, policy makers increasingly embraced this rationale, and it quickly became the conventional wisdom on which the new consensus rested. This Article revisits the government patent policy debate from a political economy and historical perspective, and in doing so, motivates a reassessment of the prevailing framework. The commercialization rationale and the resulting technology transfer consensus capped a decades-long political conflict, one replete with alternative value claims and untried policy choices. At the heart of this conflict was the power of R&D-intensive corporations to dominate and control industrial research, and the attempts of progressives to use public R&D to limit that power and redistribute the social benefits of innovation. Beginning in the New Deal, progressives conceptualized government-funded research and public patent ownership as a counterweight to private research power and a means of protecting science from corporate influence. With the dramatic expansions of federal R&D during World War II and the Space Race, progressives drew repeatedly on these reform impulses and revived the patent policy question on broad terms. At multiple critical junctures, private industry led the attack against these critiques and promoted commercialization instead as the leading policy aim. After successive failures to shift government patent policy along progressive lines, the more expansive conceptions of government patent policy were abandoned. The commercialization rationale was all that remained, and the push for a pro-business polic","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129529917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does Over-Declaration Impede Access to Cutting-Edge Standardised Technologies?","authors":"Ya-Lan Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3923442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923442","url":null,"abstract":"This article discussed the phenomenon of over-declaration, how it may appear troubling at first glance considering the significant gap created between the number of so-called disclosed (potentially essential) patents and the patents that are truly essential to the standard, and how this over-declaration should not be cause for concern as long as access to SEPs under FRAND terms and conditions is guaranteed.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115944947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Yielding Profits? Low Adoption of an Improved Mung Bean Seed Variety in Southern Bangladesh","authors":"A. de Brauw, B. Kramer, M. Murphy","doi":"10.2499/p15738coll2.134157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134157","url":null,"abstract":"Agricultural technology adoption is an important driver of rural poverty reduction. We study take-up of a specific technology: BARI-Mung 6 (BM6), an improved mung bean seed variety, among smallholder farmers in the southern region of Bangladesh. In contrast to agronomic studies on BM6 performance under highly controlled conditions, we focus on performance of this variety for farmers who are growing outside of the context of an agronomic field trial. We find no evidence of higher performance in this uncontrolled environment: we do not observe statistically significant differences in output or yields between farmers planting BM6 and those planting local varieties. We do, however, observe a significant positive association between BM6 use and yields among farmers who report applying seeds within recommended guidelines. Using a simple model, we illustrate that modest uncertainty around the required quantity of seed per unit area of land can substantively impact the profitability of BM6 seeds for smallholders in our study context. Our findings highlight the importance of providing adequate extension information along with improved technologies to encourage adoption and ultimately improve farmer welfare.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117130186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Small Innovators: No Risk, No Return","authors":"Noah Stoffman, Michael Woeppel, M. Yavuz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3291471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3291471","url":null,"abstract":"We find that small innovators earn higher returns than small non-innovators for up to five years. We find no such innovation premium among large firms. A battery of tests shows that this innovation premium among small firms is explained by risk. Our findings, which are based on a simple measure to identify innovative firms, are in contrast with previous papers that attribute higher returns to innovation to investor underreaction. We argue that an innovation premium exists among small firms, but not large firms, because small innovators focus more on risky product innovation and rely more on organization capital, which amplifies their systematic risk. In addition, small innovators contribute significantly to the size premium. Overall, the higher cost of equity among small innovators has implications for their investment, growth, and capital structure decisions.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130909967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Intellectual Property of COVID-19","authors":"Ana Santos Rutschman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3691239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3691239","url":null,"abstract":"The response to COVID-19 is indissolubly tied to intellectual property. In an increasingly globalized world in which infectious disease pathogens travel faster and wider than before, the development of vaccines, treatments and other forms of medical technology has become an integral part of public health preparedness and response frameworks. The development of these technologies, and to a certain extent the allocation and distribution of resulting outputs, is informed by intellectual property regimes. These regimes influence the commitment of R&D resources, shape scientific collaborations and, in some cases, may condition the widespread availability of emerging technologies. As seen throughout this chapter, COVID-19 has exposed the shortcomings of ingrained reliance on intellectual property as a channel for the production and dissemination of medical technologies needed to address the problems posed by pandemics and epidemics. At the same time, COVID-19 has brought new life to countervailing efforts to explore legal and policy mechanisms to potentially offset some of the problems posed by the pervasiveness of, and shortcomings associated with, intellectual property dynamics. \u0000 \u0000In tracing the dual ways in which intellectual property has affected preparedness for, and the response to, COVID-19, this chapter highlights three features of contemporary intellectual property regimes and examines their impact on innovation(s) needed to address public health crises. First, it explores the incentives function of patent law and policy, which places considerable emphasis on market-driven investment in R&D on medical technologies. In so doing, intellectual property becomes one of the driving forces of the commodification of goods—vaccines, drugs or ventilator parts, for example—which are best understood as public health goods. \u0000 \u0000Second, the chapter illustrates how intellectual property has reinforced an ethos of siloed R&D, as illustrated by the COVID-19 vaccine race, which at the time of writing includes hundreds of separate vaccine development projects. These siloes further extend into the allocative domain: with the development of medical technologies now largely steeped in proprietary frameworks, several countries have resumed the practice of reserving significant amounts of emerging technologies for their domestic populations, thus curtailing the possibility of equitable transnational approaches to a global public health crisis. This approach is commonly known in the field of vaccines as “vaccine nationalism.” Nationalism skews the distribution of medical technologies developed during a pandemic, reducing opportunities for transnational coordination and potentially limiting access to these technologies by populations in economically disadvantaged parts of the world. \u0000 \u0000The chapter ends nonetheless on a positive note, as COVID-19 has also made it abundantly clear that the legal infrastructure needed to address many of these problems is already in place.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"934 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127020303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement","authors":"Kyle W. Higham, Gaétan de Rassenfosse, A. Jaffe","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3697223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3697223","url":null,"abstract":"The ‘quality’ of novel technological innovations is extremely variable, and the ability to measure innovation quality is essential to sensible, evidence-based policy. Patents, an often vital precursor to a commercialised innovation, share this heterogeneous quality distribution. A pertinent question then arises: How should we define and measure patent quality? Accepting that different stakeholders have different views of this concept, we take a multi-dimensional view of patent quality in this work. We first test the consistency of popular post-grant outcomes that are often used as patent quality measures. Finding these measures to be generally inconsistent, we then use a raft of patent indicators that are defined at the time of grant to dissect the characteristics associated with different post-grant outcomes. We find broad disagreement in the relative importance of individual characteristics between outcomes and, further, significant variation of the same across technologies within outcomes. We conclude that measurement of patent quality is highly sensitive to both stakeholder viewpoint and technology type. Our findings bear implications for scholarly research using patent data as well as for policy discussions about patent quality.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131107597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ethnographic Explorations of Intellectual Property","authors":"S. Chapman, Rosemary J. Coombe","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3685226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3685226","url":null,"abstract":"Ethnographic research into intellectual property (IP) gained traction in the mid-1990s. During this period international trade agreements mandated that all states introduce minimum IP protections, property rights in intangible goods were expanded to encompass new subject areas, international Indigenous Peoples’ human rights were being negotiated, and protecting biodiversity became a global policy concern. Anthropologists considered IP extension in terms of the processes of commodification the law enabled, the cultural incommensurability of the law’s presuppositions in various societies, the implications of these rights for disciplinary research and publication ethics, and the modes of subjectification and territorialization that the enforcement of such laws engendered. Recognizing that IP clearly constrains and shapes the circulation of goods through the privatization of significant resources, critical anthropological examinations of Western liberal legal binary distinctions between public and private goods also revealed the forms of dispossession enabled by presuming a singular cultural commons. Anthropologists showed the diversity of publics constituted through authorized and unauthorized reproduction and circulation of cultural goods, exploring the management of intangible cultural goods in a variety of moral economies as well as the construction and translation of tradition in new policy arenas. The intersection of IP and human rights also prompted greater disciplinary reflexivity with respect to research ethics and publication practices. Analyzing how IP protections are legitimated and the activities that their enforcement delegitimizes, ethnography illustrated how the law creates privileged and abject subjectivities, reconfigures affective relationships between people and places, and produces zones of policing and discipline in processes of territorialization.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115009120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Value of Cellular Connectivity – From Mobile Devices to the Internet-of-Things (IoT)","authors":"Bowman J. Heiden","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3670222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3670222","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated the value that cellular connectivity enables for the existing mobile device market and the emerging IoT market across multiple industry verticals, resulting in the following key insights and conclusions:• The adoption of cellular connectivity has increased worldwide with the number of cellular subscriptions surpassing the global population in 2016.• Each cellular generation (G) requires investments of tens of billions of dollars in R&D, millions of person-hours in standard development by hundreds of market actors through an open, consensus standardization process. Cellular standard development at 3GPP results in tens of thousands of contributions and over a thousand technical documents (i.e., TS/TR) per year.• Cellular standards advance in performance by orders of magnitude across generations in addition to providing interoperability. This process combines the revolutionary development of functional capabilities with evolutionary progress within each generation. 5G is an excellent example of a revolutionary step that opens up entirely new capabilities and markets, as did the smartphone with 3G.• Macroeconomic studies have shown that cellular standards have a positive impact on GDP growth, ranging from 0.3-0.6% (GDP per capita) and 0.5-1.2% (gross GDP) for a 10% increase in mobile adoption globally across different periods. • The total market value based on revenue from five interrelated cellular markets was calculated at $2.1T in 2019, with a growth estimated to approximately $3T in 2025. The total economic value (including consumer surplus) was estimated at $4.8T and $7.5T, respectively. Other microeconomic studies have forecasted $13.2T in gross output by 2035 (corresponding roughly to $7.5T in total market value based on revenue).• A smartphone is a market platform, not merely a device, where the most value is generated upstream of the device sale. The total market value based on revenue for the smartphone-related markets was calculated at approximately $1,600 per smartphone sold ($2,800 including consumer surplus) compared to $392 for only the smartphone device in 2017 in the US. • Growth in mobile applications (direct revenue and advertising) and IoT solutions will drive overall market growth enabled by 5G. The largest source of value generated by IoT will likely come from efficiency/productivity gains that will create both direct and indirect increases in revenues, but primarily decreases in costs.• The Cellular Value Added for Apple and Samsung cellular devices were calculated based on current and historical prices for devices with and without cellular functionality. This included the iPhone ($275-500), iPod ($130-150) and Galaxy Tab ($80-140), and Apple Watch ($100) and Galaxy Active 2 ($140) and Galaxy Watch ($40).","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128177860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Collaborative Innovation (or Not?!) When Product Performance Is Critical","authors":"Thomas A. Weber","doi":"10.24251/HICSS.2021.786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.786","url":null,"abstract":"Research and development (R&D) collaborations are horizontal agreements among firms to join forces in their inventive activities. As in the context of the recent COVID-19 global pandemic, such collaborations are often promoted with an argument of increased R&D productivity. In numerous contexts, especially when marginal production costs are low, such as for medications or for software, the consumers' surplus depends critically on the best-performing product available on the market, for-all else equal-this product will tend to take a dominant position. Using a simple two-stage model of innovation and subsequent product commercialization on a market with heterogeneous consumers, we show that a noncollaborative patent race with patent protection (for the best product) provides strong innovation incentives, leading to better performing products than a regime of noncollaborative research without patent protection or of collaborative research (with profit sharing). © 2021 IEEE Computer Society. All rights reserved.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122601332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Adapting Indian Copyright: Bollywood, Indian Cultural Adaptation, and the Path to Economic Development","authors":"MichaelD.E. Goodyear","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3645081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3645081","url":null,"abstract":"Bollywood and the Indian film industry have enjoyed enormous success as one of the largest producers of movies in the world. Yet despite the bright image of Indian cinema producing over a thousand movies a year and selling billions of tickets, the industry has faced controversy over the practice of copying expression, sometimes practically scene for scene, in U.S. and other films and adapting them into a version that reflects Indian social and cinematic customs and mores (“Indian cultural adaptation”). A long-standing practice, Indian cultural adaptation in Bollywood has only attracted the attention of Hollywood studios in the past twenty years, but under international, U.S., and Indian copyright law, the legality of the practice remains in an unsettled gray zone.<br><br>Current literature on Indian cultural adaptation remains sparse and focuses on greater enforcement by India or Hollywood studios, at least partially condemning the practice. This article instead argues that the practice of Indian cultural adaptation, at least to an extent, is in line with other limitations on the scope of copyright, including the expression-idea distinction, fair use, and the scène à faire doctrine. Drawing on a growing trend in law and economic development literature to craft property rights on a country-by-country basis, this article also argues that explicit legalization of limited Indian cultural adaptation would also benefit India culturally and economically, ultimately assisting the Indian entertainment industry to obtain foreign investment on more favorable terms and further develop its burgeoning talent.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116608027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}