Do Patents Work?
The book by Bessen and Meurer (Do Patents Work?)had been cited in the law review literature long before its March 08 release:
Lemley [105 Mich. L. Rev. 1525 ] wrote: Jim Bessen and Mike Meurer have demonstrated that the more research and development a company does, the more likely it is to get sued for patent infringement. James Bessen & Michael Meurer, Do Patents Work? (forthcoming 2007). The most likely reason that this would be true is if inadvertent infringement is a common occurrence.
Menell [13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 487] also cites the book: Between 1984 and 2000, software patents grew from 3% of litigated patents to 22%. [See James Bessen & Michael Meurer, Do Patents Work? ch. 7 at 8 (2006) (manuscript).]
A relevant prior law review article by Bessen and Meurer [9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1] contains the text: Academic and independent inventions possibly have disproportionately greater social value, and thus merit special attention. n55
Separately, in 1 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 207, Cecil Quillen mentions work by Bessen:
For a quantitative assessment of software innovation following the availability of software patents, see James E. Bessen & Eric Maskin, Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, (MIT Dep't of Econ., Working Paper No. 00-01, 2000), available at http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=206189. (assessing software innovation following the availability of software patents); see also James E. Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, An Empirical Look at Software Patents, (Fed. Res. Bank of Phila. Working Paper No. 03-17, 2004), available at http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=461701.
Quillen also mentions Quillen’s papers on patent grant rate:
Studies by the Author and others tracking examination performance of the USPTO over time found that USPTO examination standards declined rapidly following the advent of the Federal Circuit and the lowered standards promulgated by it.
[See Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--Updated, 16 FED. CIR. B.J. 635 (2006); Cecil D. Quillen, Jr., Ogden H. Webster & Richard Eichmann, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office--Extended, 12 FED. CIR. B.J., 35 (2002); see also Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 11 FED. CIR. B.J. 1 (2001).]
Quillen does not mention in the Virginia article papers criticizing his work.
See also -->
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-bessen-and-meurer.html
Lemley [105 Mich. L. Rev. 1525 ] wrote: Jim Bessen and Mike Meurer have demonstrated that the more research and development a company does, the more likely it is to get sued for patent infringement. James Bessen & Michael Meurer, Do Patents Work? (forthcoming 2007). The most likely reason that this would be true is if inadvertent infringement is a common occurrence.
Menell [13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 487] also cites the book: Between 1984 and 2000, software patents grew from 3% of litigated patents to 22%. [See James Bessen & Michael Meurer, Do Patents Work? ch. 7 at 8 (2006) (manuscript).]
A relevant prior law review article by Bessen and Meurer [9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1] contains the text: Academic and independent inventions possibly have disproportionately greater social value, and thus merit special attention. n55
Separately, in 1 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 207, Cecil Quillen mentions work by Bessen:
For a quantitative assessment of software innovation following the availability of software patents, see James E. Bessen & Eric Maskin, Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, (MIT Dep't of Econ., Working Paper No. 00-01, 2000), available at http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=206189. (assessing software innovation following the availability of software patents); see also James E. Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, An Empirical Look at Software Patents, (Fed. Res. Bank of Phila. Working Paper No. 03-17, 2004), available at http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=461701.
Quillen also mentions Quillen’s papers on patent grant rate:
Studies by the Author and others tracking examination performance of the USPTO over time found that USPTO examination standards declined rapidly following the advent of the Federal Circuit and the lowered standards promulgated by it.
[See Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--Updated, 16 FED. CIR. B.J. 635 (2006); Cecil D. Quillen, Jr., Ogden H. Webster & Richard Eichmann, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office--Extended, 12 FED. CIR. B.J., 35 (2002); see also Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 11 FED. CIR. B.J. 1 (2001).]
Quillen does not mention in the Virginia article papers criticizing his work.
See also -->
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-bessen-and-meurer.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:12 AM
1 Comments:
Does Economics work?
(Perhaps reading some recent editorials by Krugman of the NY Times might help answer the question)
Post a Comment
<< Home