{"title":"专利失败:财产的悲剧","authors":"K. Collins","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1156434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reviews and extends the arguments that James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer present in Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Patent Failure raises the bar for contributions to the ongoing debates over both the need for patent reform and the type of patent reform that is needed. Based on an innovative and elegant empirical analysis, Bessen and Meurer defend the counterintuitive position that, outside of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the contemporary patent regime functions as a tax on innovation. In other words, taking a world without any patent protection at all as the baseline, they argue that patents decrease the welfare of the very innovating firms that are today seeking and obtaining patents. To explain this phenomenon, they point to the poor notice of the existence and scope of patent rights that the contemporary patent regime provides to the public. Poor notice, in turn, means that innovating firms bear an unavoidable risk of infringing other innovating firms' patents and bearing the costs of litigation. Bessen and Meurer simply argue that the average benefit that an innovating firm receives from owning its own patents is smaller than the average cost it incurs to fend of allegations of patent infringement. After summarizing and critiquing the book's principal arguments, this Essay extends Bessen and Meurer's analysis by exploring the import of their findings for legal scholarship on property failures. Although they do not themselves articulate this point, Bessen and Meurer enrich the literature on property failures by positing a new model for property failure: a tragedy of property. A tragedy of property is the true mirror image of the tragedy of the commons: it is a rush to ruin that is caused, rather than remedied, by property. An innovating firm receives a private welfare benefit from obtaining and enforcing each additional patent. However, each innovator's self-interested decision to increase his or her own \"herd\" of patents decreases the welfare of innovators as a group because the inter-innovator externalities of patents outweigh the benefits that patent owners internalize. A tragedy of the commons results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of a rival, scarce resource. A tragedy of property results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of the institution of property itself.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patent Failure: A Tragedy of Property\",\"authors\":\"K. Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1156434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay reviews and extends the arguments that James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer present in Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Patent Failure raises the bar for contributions to the ongoing debates over both the need for patent reform and the type of patent reform that is needed. Based on an innovative and elegant empirical analysis, Bessen and Meurer defend the counterintuitive position that, outside of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the contemporary patent regime functions as a tax on innovation. In other words, taking a world without any patent protection at all as the baseline, they argue that patents decrease the welfare of the very innovating firms that are today seeking and obtaining patents. To explain this phenomenon, they point to the poor notice of the existence and scope of patent rights that the contemporary patent regime provides to the public. Poor notice, in turn, means that innovating firms bear an unavoidable risk of infringing other innovating firms' patents and bearing the costs of litigation. Bessen and Meurer simply argue that the average benefit that an innovating firm receives from owning its own patents is smaller than the average cost it incurs to fend of allegations of patent infringement. After summarizing and critiquing the book's principal arguments, this Essay extends Bessen and Meurer's analysis by exploring the import of their findings for legal scholarship on property failures. Although they do not themselves articulate this point, Bessen and Meurer enrich the literature on property failures by positing a new model for property failure: a tragedy of property. A tragedy of property is the true mirror image of the tragedy of the commons: it is a rush to ruin that is caused, rather than remedied, by property. An innovating firm receives a private welfare benefit from obtaining and enforcing each additional patent. However, each innovator's self-interested decision to increase his or her own \\\"herd\\\" of patents decreases the welfare of innovators as a group because the inter-innovator externalities of patents outweigh the benefits that patent owners internalize. A tragedy of the commons results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of a rival, scarce resource. A tragedy of property results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of the institution of property itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":281709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1156434\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1156434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本文回顾并扩展了James Bessen和Michael J. Meurer在《专利失败:法官、官僚和律师如何将创新者置于危险之中》一书中提出的观点。专利失败提高了对正在进行的关于专利改革的必要性和所需的专利改革类型的辩论的贡献标准。基于一项创新而优雅的实证分析,Bessen和Meurer捍卫了一个违反直觉的立场,即在化学和制药行业之外,当代专利制度的作用是对创新征税。换句话说,以一个完全没有专利保护的世界为基准,他们认为专利降低了那些正在寻求和获得专利的创新公司的福利。为了解释这一现象,他们指出,当代专利制度对公众提供的专利权的存在和范围缺乏关注。反过来,缺乏通知意味着创新企业要承担不可避免的侵犯其他创新企业专利和承担诉讼费用的风险。Bessen和Meurer只是简单地认为,一家创新企业从拥有自己的专利中获得的平均收益要小于其为专利侵权指控辩护所付出的平均成本。在总结和批评了本书的主要论点之后,本文通过探索他们的发现对财产失败法律学术的重要性,扩展了贝森和梅勒的分析。虽然他们自己没有阐明这一点,但贝森和梅勒通过提出一种新的财产失败模型:财产悲剧,丰富了关于财产失败的文献。财产悲剧是公地悲剧的真实镜像:它是财产造成的、而不是补救的一种匆忙的毁灭。创新企业从获得和执行每一项额外专利中获得私人福利收益。然而,每个创新者增加自己的专利“群体”的自利决策降低了创新者作为一个群体的福利,因为专利的创新者之间的外部性超过了专利所有者的内部性。公地悲剧源于对竞争性稀缺资源的低效、外部性的过度使用。财产的悲剧源于对财产制度本身的低效、产生外部性的过度使用。
This essay reviews and extends the arguments that James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer present in Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Patent Failure raises the bar for contributions to the ongoing debates over both the need for patent reform and the type of patent reform that is needed. Based on an innovative and elegant empirical analysis, Bessen and Meurer defend the counterintuitive position that, outside of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the contemporary patent regime functions as a tax on innovation. In other words, taking a world without any patent protection at all as the baseline, they argue that patents decrease the welfare of the very innovating firms that are today seeking and obtaining patents. To explain this phenomenon, they point to the poor notice of the existence and scope of patent rights that the contemporary patent regime provides to the public. Poor notice, in turn, means that innovating firms bear an unavoidable risk of infringing other innovating firms' patents and bearing the costs of litigation. Bessen and Meurer simply argue that the average benefit that an innovating firm receives from owning its own patents is smaller than the average cost it incurs to fend of allegations of patent infringement. After summarizing and critiquing the book's principal arguments, this Essay extends Bessen and Meurer's analysis by exploring the import of their findings for legal scholarship on property failures. Although they do not themselves articulate this point, Bessen and Meurer enrich the literature on property failures by positing a new model for property failure: a tragedy of property. A tragedy of property is the true mirror image of the tragedy of the commons: it is a rush to ruin that is caused, rather than remedied, by property. An innovating firm receives a private welfare benefit from obtaining and enforcing each additional patent. However, each innovator's self-interested decision to increase his or her own "herd" of patents decreases the welfare of innovators as a group because the inter-innovator externalities of patents outweigh the benefits that patent owners internalize. A tragedy of the commons results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of a rival, scarce resource. A tragedy of property results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of the institution of property itself.