Friday, February 01, 2008

BIO report shows absence of data for patent reform, but misses key references

Note that BIO [Biotechnology Industry Organization] has prepared a paper on 30 Jan 08 on the lack of empirical data supporting patent reform, echoing a theme previously expressed by, among others, Chris Cotropia.

Mark Lemley is cited in footnote 13 ("Valuable Patents") and in footnote 74 ("Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp," attributed to the Standford [sic] Public Law Series. Not good proofing here! See link). Quillen and and Webster show up, obliquely, through a cite to the NAS/STEP report (footnote 8). Jaffe and Lerner are in footnote 4.

Cotropia is not cited, although he had written: The problem with the recent reports and the current argumentation before the Supreme Court in KSR is that none of the assertions being made are supported by recent empirical data.

Although there has been much discussion of the "patent grant rate" in legal journals, the authors (Mills and Tereskerz) don't cite any of it.

In the end the paper does correctly point out shortcomings in the FTC and NAS/STEP reports, but the paper has flaws in not citing to previous work in the same area which is highly relevant to their arguments and conclusions.

See also

See BIO press release:


Post a Comment

<< Home