Tuesday, November 08, 2011

The supplemental poverty measure

There's currently discussion about results from the new "supplemental poverty measure." By this new formula, we have more poor older Americans, about 1 in 6. Out-of-pocket medical care was not included in the old formula, and that's a killer for old people.

The current discussion on poverty does evoke the past discussion on patent grant rate. See for example
Lawrence B. Ebert, Patent Grant Rates at the United States Patent and Trademark Office,. 4 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 108 (2004).
In the past, one could find the article on the internet, but not anymore. Using the previous link, one gets an error message: can't open the page “http://jip.kentlaw.edu/art/volume%204/4%20Chi-Kent%20J%20Intell%20Prop%20108.pdf” because [Safari] can’t find the server “jip.kentlaw.edu”.

The 2004 article in Kent JIP contained discussion of the odd treatment by Lemley and Moore of work by Clarke:

Criticism of Clarke paper by Lemley and Moore.

In February 2004, Lemley and Moore criticized the work of Clarke, and suggested that the 85% number of the 2002 paper by Quillen and Webster was more reliable. n11 Lemley and Moore stated that Clarke erroneously assumed that every continuation resulted in a patent. n12 The relevant text on page 338 of Clarke states:

The USPTO models deduct from the overall number of original applications those that are also counted as continuing applications, to avoid double counting of applications (as does Quillen and Webster). The USTPO models, however, also deduct from the total number of patents the percentage of applications that give rise to patents both from the original applications and from continuing applications (which Quillen and Webster does not).

There is no mention of any assumption that "every" continuation resulted in a patent. There is a correction for cases in which BOTH an original (i.e., parent) application AND continuing applications give rise to patents. In 2002, Quillen and Webster made such a correction, although less complete than that made by Clarke.

There is no basis for the specific criticism by Lemley and Moore of Clarke. n13 In fact, it appears that Clarke's approach is more accurate than that of Quillen and Webster, and, as such, the 74% number, rather than the 85% number, should be deemed more reliable.

-->Footnote 12 of 2004 Kent JIP article-->

Footnote 22 of Lemley and Moore states: See Robert A. Clarke, U.S. Continuity Law and Its Impact on the Comparative Patenting Rates of the U.S., Japan and the European Patent Office, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 335, 338 (2003) (erroneously assuming that every continuation resulted in a patent and concluding that the grant rate was 75%). The 85% number provided in the revised Quillen et al. study is based on actual data about the applications that issue based on continuations, and reflects the best estimate we have of how often applications mature into patents.

One notes that Lemley later modified his viewpoint about the 85% number.


Blogger CAFO Maddness said...

A series of amazing insights from a Washington, D.C. think tank expert on the topic.

Another series of amazing insights from the Urban Institute: How can gov. benefits, included in the new Census Supplemental Poverty Measure, yield a higher poverty measure? Shouldn't they be helping.

Yes. And they are. But the measure's a little different. Here's how:


8:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home