I’ve long thought about the academic law and economics campaign against Microsoft in its antitrust case with the Department of Justice. A couple times, I sat back and reflected: what masterful strategy and execution. Certainly, there are more regulation friendly than free market friendly minds in academia, but why were there so many antitrust economists and almost no patent scholars involved in talking about Microsoft’s IP, how did certain academics who had done little work on the technology industry or even once sided with Microsoft’s positions, argue such extreme positions against it. Finally, what can explain academia’s dislike for Microsoft and continued arguments with the company even after Judge Kollar-Kotelly effectively scolded some competitors for acting like pirates going after Redmond’s intellectual crown jewels.

With the emergence of details on Microsoft competitors working with the government before and during the case, I surmise that there was probably some central coordination, but the overall academic campaign against Microsoft was shaped by individual players bringing in academic experts who sided based on their specific disagreements with Redmond. Put enough of these consultants together with the vast academic network of the Department of Justice, and you’ll get quite a bee swarm; the effect of which, to Microsoft and probably consumers, was to beg the question: what is this case about again, why are you suing us?

I’ve also thought about academic influences in the software patent debate.

The American government actually seems business friendly on software patents, a vast improvement over its EU counterparts. There is marked criticism of software patents within US academia and industry however; and the coordination of an effective academic campaign against software patents is probably at a moderate maturity phase. Yet after reviewing patent law and economic conference line-ups over the past few years, one name consistently emerges as a behind the scenes influence most capable of putting together a victorious effort to make software patent holders shake in their boots. Its not an free and open source software company: they don’t have the influence or make enough money to shape policy to great extent. I’m talking about a Professor in law and economics who does not necessarily advocate FOSS, but rather sees certain changes to patent law as necessary for continued technological innovation and economic growth.

So who could this person be? Hmmm, someone with the ambition and ability to put together a multi-sector policy agenda. It probably helps software patent critics that this individual has spectacular reputation in academia, government and industry; has founded elite research institutes from which many young scholars began their digital economy research careers; has organized economic studies for international organizations to consult governments on software patents; and is respected even by free market patent academics in industrial organization and innovation policy. Well, here’s a hint, said individual has superb writing style, I’m reviewing the Professor’s 2002-2005 articles, awaiting availability of summer 2006 patent conference transcripts, and looking forward to fall 2006 presentations. Professor, if you're reading this, please forward to me any copies if you have them on hand:)

posted by Noel Le @ 3:52 PM | Academia, Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)