Law professor debate on PatentlyO
Within a guest post by Professor Colleen V. Chien on PatentlyO:
Along this vein, Petherbridge and Kesan et al provide thoughtful suggestions and questions about how the analysis could be verified, refined, and extended. Their input is timely as efforts to do so are just getting underway, as part of adapting this exploratory project to commercial settings. Looking at more, and more recent patents, replicating the analysis, and adding additional variables, where it makes sense, will necessarily be part of this effort.
The abstract for the Petherbridge paper [ Texas Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 75, 2012 ] includes the text: Perhaps the most surprising message from the analysis is just how difficult it might be to predict patent litigation to a level sufficient to provide any real practical utility to innovators.
Along this vein, Petherbridge and Kesan et al provide thoughtful suggestions and questions about how the analysis could be verified, refined, and extended. Their input is timely as efforts to do so are just getting underway, as part of adapting this exploratory project to commercial settings. Looking at more, and more recent patents, replicating the analysis, and adding additional variables, where it makes sense, will necessarily be part of this effort.
The abstract for the Petherbridge paper [ Texas Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 75, 2012 ] includes the text: Perhaps the most surprising message from the analysis is just how difficult it might be to predict patent litigation to a level sufficient to provide any real practical utility to innovators.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home