No, "open innovation" isn't the answer

Back in March 2009, IPBiz discussed "Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents Versus Markets", written by Debrah Meloso, Jerney Copic, and Peter Bossaerts.

Flash forward to 28 Jan 2010, and Jeffrey H. Toney writes in blog.nj:

I believe, in part by replacing the current patent system that is founded in exclusive (intellectual) property rights. A bill focused on patent reform has been under consideration since 2005 but has stalled.
An entirely different approach for patent reform is needed. I favor an “open innovation” market, in which “everyone holds shares in the components of potential discoveries and can trade those shares in an anonymous market”.
Reinventing our patent system from the ground up may seem daunting, but it could provide more incentives to fuel innovation. Incentives for innovation have progressively diminished because of weakening of patent rights in the U.S. federal courts, particularly for brand-name medications.

No, Jeff, the academics writing in Science do not have a viable plain for intellectual property. And, no, the IT folks are not complaining about "a weakening of patent rights in the U.S. federal courts." In apportionment of damages, the IT folks tried to weaken patent rights, but that didn't happen.