Difference between revisions of "Mann (2005) - Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Has title=Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry
 
|Has title=Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry
 
|Has author=
 
|Has author=
|Has year=
+
|Has year=2005
 
|In journal=
 
|In journal=
 
|In volume=
 
|In volume=

Revision as of 12:20, 29 September 2020

Article
Has bibtex key
Has article title
Has year 2005
In journal
In volume
In number
Has pages
Has publisher
© edegan.com, 2016


Reference

  • Mann, Ronald J (2005), "Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?", Texas Law Review, Vol.83, pp.961--1009
@article{mann2005patents,
  title={Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?},
  author={Mann, Ronald J},
  journal={Texas Law Review},
  volume={83},
  pages={961--1009},
  year={2005},
  abstract={The economic significance of a patent depends on its scope: the broader the scope, the larger the number of competing products and processes that will infringe the patent. Many theoretical papers have tried to assess the effects of fine tuning various aspects of the patent system to make it more efficient.' But only a few have focussed on patent scope,2 even though scope decisions are subject to far more discretion than most of the aspects more intensively studied. Furthermore, most theoretical writing on patents is directed toward issues that as a practical matter are considered largely settled. For example, several economists have explored the question of optimal patent duration.3 Their work did have a direct impact on the decision to extend patent terms on pharmaceuticals to compensate for regulatory lag.4 But despite the scholarly attention to patent duration, the term of most patents remains fixed at seventeen years.5 Likewise, there has been considerable debate over the years on the merits of compulsory licensing of patents under some circumstances,6 yet the intellectual property community has repeatedly rejected the idea.7 Thus, while the literature continues to generate interesting questions about bedrock assumptions and practices, it has little bearing on the everyday operations of the patent system. This Article is an attempt to redress this deficiency by analyzing the economic effects of patent scope.},
  discipline={Law},
  research_type={Theory, Discussion},
  industry={Software},
  thicket_stance={Anti},
  thicket_stance_extract={The actual structure and practices of the industry belie any claim of a patent thicket},
  thicket_def={#A-ST, #B-ST, References Shapiro, References Heller/Eisenberg, Overlapping Patents, Diversely-Held, Transaction Costs, Unspecified Blocking Mechanism},
  thicket_def_extract={Most famously, Lassig argues that the proliferation of software patents has created an "anticommons" or a patent thicket... so many overlapping patents in the industry that potential innovators cannot readily obtain the approvals necessary to conduct their research. The premise of the model is that assiets will go unused because of the costs of obtaining the permissions necessary to use them.},  
  tags={Software, Survey, No Thickets!, No Search},
  filename={Mann (2005) - Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry.pdf}
}

File(s)

Abstract

The economic significance of a patent depends on its scope: the broader the scope, the larger the number of competing products and processes that will infringe the patent. Many theoretical papers have tried to assess the effects of fine tuning various aspects of the patent system to make it more efficient.' But only a few have focussed on patent scope,2 even though scope decisions are subject to far more discretion than most of the aspects more intensively studied. Furthermore, most theoretical writing on patents is directed toward issues that as a practical matter are considered largely settled. For example, several economists have explored the question of optimal patent duration.3 Their work did have a direct impact on the decision to extend patent terms on pharmaceuticals to compensate for regulatory lag.4 But despite the scholarly attention to patent duration, the term of most patents remains fixed at seventeen years.5 Likewise, there has been considerable debate over the years on the merits of compulsory licensing of patents under some circumstances,6 yet the intellectual property community has repeatedly rejected the idea.7 Thus, while the literature continues to generate interesting questions about bedrock assumptions and practices, it has little bearing on the everyday operations of the patent system. This Article is an attempt to redress this deficiency by analyzing the economic effects of patent scope.