ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"AI Patents: A Data Driven Approach","authors":"Brian Haney","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3527154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3527154","url":null,"abstract":"The global technology market exceeds $12 trillion. The market’s fastest growing niche is artificial intelligence (AI). Yet, while the literature on technology patents is theoretically robust - the literature on AI patents is relatively uncharted. As a consequence, lawyers, scholars, and commentators often refer to AI as a black box – arguing not even advanced computer scientists understand how it works. But all AI technology is written with formal logic, mathematics, and computer code. Thus, all AI systems are syntactically describable, repeatable, and explainable. In other words, there is no black box. \u0000 \u0000This Article empirically analyzes the unique intellectual property strategy decisions technology firms face by introducing a dataset including four specific types of machine learning patents: deep learning, reinforcement learning, deep reinforcement learning, and natural language processing. Dataset charts, models, and graphs, provide insight into market alcoves, while analysis of each machine learning technology shines a light through the “black box.” Further, patent claims analysis reveals significant overlap in patented AI technologies. In sum, this Article draws on a growing body of informatics, intellectual property, and technology scholarship to provide novel patent analysis and critique.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116584066","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":"Interviews with Cannabis Licensees in Washington State: A Report for the Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Board","authors":"M. Kleiman, Sam Hampsher, Steven Davenport, Clarissa Manning, Lowry Heussler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3437462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437462","url":null,"abstract":"With the passage of I-502 in 2012, Washington became (with Colorado) one of the first two US states to legalize the production, sale and use of recreational cannabis. As of June, 2018, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) has issued 1947 licenses. However, despite efforts to \"right-size\" the licensed production to the demand for recreational cannabis, cannabis is abundant and growers are having trouble finding retail outlets. Regulatory limits on growing area (\"canopy\") that were expected to constrain production have turned out to be non-binding; many licensees report using less than half their licensed canopy. The resulting sharp drop in cannabis prices has implications for the stability of the industry and, potentially, for public health.<br><br>The LCB commissioned BOTEC Analysis, LLC, and the RAND Corporation to investigate the on-the-ground realities of the cannabis industry in Washington 6 years after it was created. Of particular interest to the LCB were trends in cannabis consumption, production, supply and demand, pricing, and unused licensed canopy. BOTEC undertook a set of producer and processor interviews as a complement to the statistical investigation and policy analysis at the center of the project. The interviews conducted, which are the subject of this report, are intended to illustrate the experiences of cannabis producers and processors, large and small alike, operating in Washington.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117157776","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":"Music 2025 – The Music Data Dilemma: Issues Facing the Music Industry in Improving Data Management","authors":"F. Lyons, Hyojung Sun, Dennis Collopy, K. Curran, Paul Ohagan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3437670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437670","url":null,"abstract":"The Intellectual Property framework is a crucial underpinning factor in the success of the UK’s creative industries. It provides rights owners and holders with the tools to promote and distribute creative content to the public and to receive remuneration and attribution in return. However, the advent of streaming and online distribution has posed a significant challenge for the management of repertoire and content attribution. This is due to unprecedented volumes of data being generated, divergent velocities across the data flow, exponential increases in the variety of data sources, a lack of confidence in the veracity of the information and difficulties with access. Additionally, inherited frameworks, which remain the backbone of the system, and which evolved to ensure that rights holders are effectively, efficiently and transparently remunerated, have increasingly been threatened by a range of competing, proprietary data protocols, introduced through disruptive innovation. Across the ecosystem as a whole, a divergence of standards has compounded problems. This multi-layered fragmentation of metadata and a preference for proprietary walled data silos, have inevitably undermined cross-system interoperability. These issues, and in particular their effects on the music industry, were pointed out in the Bazalgette Independent Review of the Creative Industries.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124995170","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":"Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws","authors":"Bernhard Ganglmair, Imke Reimers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3393510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3393510","url":null,"abstract":"We use exogenous variation in the strength of trade secrets protection to show that a relative weakening of patents (compared to trade secrets) has a disproportionately negative effect on the disclosure of processes - inventions that are not otherwise visible to society. We develop a structural model of initial and follow-on innovation to determine the effects of such a shift in disclosure on overall welfare in industries characterized by cumulative innovation. We find that while stronger trade secrets encourage investment in R&D, they may have negative e ects on overall welfare - the result of a significant decline in follow-on innovation.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116306523","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":"Bridging the Gap Between the Developing and Developed Worlds: An Analysis of International IP Instruments in Agriculture Policy","authors":"D. Sampath","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3596883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3596883","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the present framework of Intellectual Property and looks at how farmer's rights are being protected along with equal importance being given to innovation and development in the area of agriculture. The paper goes on to explain the International Framework for Intellectual Property Rights, by comparatively studying the UPOV convention and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. While the former is a system that is based on heavy patenting thus decreasing access to seeds, the latter explores the incentive provided to farmers to thrive in a sui generis system of crop cultivation. The paper concludes by attempting to balance farmer's privilege with plant breeder's rights offering the readers contrasting perspectives in the system of international intellectual property rights for agriculture.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124458165","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 Patent Troll: Benign Middleman or Stick-Up Artist?","authors":"David S. Abrams, Ufuk Akcigit, Gokhan Oz, Jeremy Pearce","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3361215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361215","url":null,"abstract":"How do non-practicing entities (\"Patent Trolls\") impact innovation and technological progress? Although this question has important implications for industrial policy, little direct evidence about it exists. This paper provides new theoretical and empirical evidence to fill that gap. In the process, we inform a debate that has historically portrayed non-practicing entities (NPEs) as either \"benign middlemen\", who help to reallocate IP to where it is most productive, or \"stick-up artists\", who exploit the patent system to extract rents and thereby hurt innovation. We employ unprecedented access to NPE-derived patent and financial data, as well as a novel model that guides our data analysis. We find that NPEs acquire patents from small firms and those that are more litigation-prone, as well as ones that are not core to the seller's business. When NPEs license patents, those that generate higher fees are closer to the licensee's business and more likely to be litigated. We also find that downstream innovation drops in fields where patents have been acquired by NPEs. Finally, our numerical analysis shows that the existence of NPEs encourages upstream innovation and discourages downstream innovation. The overall impact of NPEs depends on the share of patent infringements that come from non-innovating producers. Our results provide some support for both views of NPEs and suggests that a more nuanced perspective on NPEs and additional empirical work are needed to make informed policy decisions.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128671118","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":"Innovation and Industry Selection","authors":"Vinesh Jha","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3313212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3313212","url":null,"abstract":"We use a novel dataset of company-level innovation measures to identify the most innovative industries based on counts of their applications for foreign worker visas and their patent applications and grants. We are able to build portfolios which overweight these innovative industries and which generate economically significant excess returns, especially in the 2013-2018 period, with low turnover. The results do not appear to be fully explained by risk factors, and the same innovation measures do not predict returns at the single stock level.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125421628","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":"Brief of Amici Curiae Mozilla, Mapbox, Medium, Patreon, Etsy, and Wikimedia in Google v. Oracle (Cert. Petition 2019)","authors":"J. Schultz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3344990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3344990","url":null,"abstract":"This Amicus Brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Google v. Oracle in support of Google's 2019 petition for certiorari. \u0000 \u0000Competition and innovation are two principles at the heart of a healthy internet and the field of software development that fuels it. For decades, software engineers have relied heavily on reuse and reimplementation of functional protocols, such as the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) in this case, to create competing alternatives to incumbent industry players and new markets for development without fear of copyright infringement. In accord with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), and the plain language of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012), the software industry has flourished utilizing this approach to make internet and software ecosystems more accessible, affordable, diverse, and robust. \u0000 \u0000By reversing this rule in the context of APIs, the Federal Circuit upended decades of industry practice and the well-established expectations of developers, investors, and consumers. API reimplementation is a common theme among developers of all sizes — from those wishing to create entirely new platforms to those wishing to develop on them. The court below heedlessly unraveled this reasonably predictive rule and set of reliable norms that are critical to software coders for understanding what is appropriate to carry over from one project to another and what is not. This is especially true for individual coders, small startups, or nonprofit software projects, who often lack legal counsel or large financial reserves to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation. \u0000 \u0000In this brief, Amici urge the Court to grant Google’s petition for certiorari in order to correct this misreading of copyright law. Specifically, Amici wish to highlight two fundamental concerns with the lower court’s opinion. First, the court’s dramatic expansion of copyright protection to include APIs, which Amici believe are not copyrightable under U.S. law, stifles innovation and competition by privileging powerful incumbents and creating artificial barriers to entry for new players and innovators where none existed before. Second, the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the fair use doctrine stands to undermine not only reimplementation and reuse of APIs, but also other valuable software engineering practices, such as reverse engineering, interoperability, and the creation of competing platforms, as well as innovations in data analytics, search engines, and many other groundbreaking advancements. Specifically, by creating irreconcilable conflicts with bedrock software fair use principles that have set the norms of engineering practice for over two decades, the Federal Circuit has opened the door to re-litigating many status quo software engineering practices — practices that open source projects and small startups depend on every day to produce new platforms, programs, features, and interfaces. \u0000 \u0000This brief was p","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134325199","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":"How Far Can Copyright Be Stretched? Framing the Debate on Whether New and Different Forms of Creativity Can Be Protected","authors":"Enrico Bonadio, N. Lucchi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3495223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3495223","url":null,"abstract":"This paper expands on whether copyright protection may be available for certain new and non-conventional works as diverse as graffiti, sports movements, dj-sets, culinary presentations, jokes, magic tricks, works created by artificial intelligence and engineered DNA. The potential expansion of copyright in a knowledge-based society is a relevant and topical subject at the moment also in light of the current scholarly and policy debates on the modernisation of copyright rules in many countries, including the EU and US. The issue of whether copyright can protect certain new and non-traditional products of human ingenuity is here addressed by carrying out a specific-work-related analysis of core tenets of copyright laws, including copyrightable subject matter, originality, fixation and authorship requirements, functionality exception, morality, and public policy provisions.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123813710","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 Examination of Continuation Applications and the Problem of Invalid Patents in the U.S.","authors":"Julian Boulanger","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3347131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3347131","url":null,"abstract":"It has long been recognised that the U.S. patent office routinely grants a large number of invalid patents. Recently, scholars have studied the root causes of this issue and have emphasised the key role played by the patent examination process itself. In this paper, I study how features of the examination process affect examiner behaviour and the problem of invalid patents in the context of continuation applications. These applications emanate from earlier patent applications filed at the patent office and allow applicants to submit new claims for a given invention. In the U.S., continuations are generally examined by the same examiner who was assigned to the earlier application. Using application-level data, I explore how this feature, which I call \"relatedness,\" affects examiners' grant decisions and other examination practices. I find that relatedness increases the grant rate, decreases examiners' efforts to narrow down the scope of protection claimed by patent applicants and decreases the examiners' search efforts for prior art. I also show that the effects of relatedness do not seem to be driven by a \"wearing down\" effect on examiners and differ only slightly across different technology areas. Finally, I find evidence that relatedness leads to the granting of patents of more dubious validity. A key implication of these results is that the way the U.S. continuation application system is designed causes examiners to adopt softer examination practices, which in turn contributes to the problem of invalid patents.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"242 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134028416","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}