Home Page
06.13.2007 (previous | next)
Bessen on Patents

I'm sure readers are aware of Jim Bessen, head of Research on Innovation and publisher of several comprehensive patent studies.

Bessen wrote in a blog post that many articles I review on this site do not make "pro-software patents arguments," and that he disagrees with several of my readings. I presume, and even encourage, readers to review the articles directly. Feel free to send any notes on my write-ups or put them in the comments section. Out of over 100 articles I"ve written-up on IPcentral, I imagine around 20% as focused on software patents, so Bessen and I a few articles to discuss:)

Bessen also comments that most patent articles I review aim at showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software industry. Word choice is important here. Scholars are not conclusive on software patents' impact on innovation, (see here for a great paper by David Mowery and Stuart Graham balancing evidence on software patents) although several important ones push the argument further than saying that software patents have not yet deterred innovation. Still, software patents have been around for at least a decade. If there was any particularly harmful effect, clear evidence would have emerged by now.

Bessen addresses drawbacks of software patents in how they may account for a major part of the recent surge in patent litigation. Patent litigation, or even fear of patent litigation, can raise the cost of innovation, and poses an important criteria for gauging software patents. If this is the case, then patent law and administrative reform, and judicial doctrine, should target specific aspects of policy governing software patents (Solveig discusses here). The resolution should address the problem.

Bessen raises two other interesting issues:

It is no accident that tech firms are leading efforts at patent reform. Although the problems with patents are more general, the problems with software patents seem to be especially severe.
The first issue, that the tech industry is active in patent reform, begs the question why there is no significant movement against software patents by small firms, independent inventors and new industry entrants- entities the patent system should serve, which are often used as symbolic victims of software patents. The second issue is that problems with software patents may not be unique, but more pronounced. This suggests that software patents do not cause exceptional problems and that complications associated with them can be resolved.

posted by Noel Le @ 8:32 PM | Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(1)


Comments

While it may be true that some particular players may benefit from a particular law or policy, for example software patents, and it may even be the case that everyone benefits to some measurable degree, it is still a very fair question to ask if this scheme is the BEST SCHEME POSSIBLE.

I am quite right to be skeptical, therefore when someone demands specific proof that someone is being harmed; that is not required. All that I need is a better scheme.

Any scheme that deprives someone of freedom (whether to innovate or to hold his/her property without threat) has a particularly high hurdle, as elemental freedoms must be placed in a preferred position, vis a vis expected economic gains, as procedural freedoms (eg. freedom of speech) are essential to our maintaining our substantive freedoms (eg freedom from involuntary starvation).

Posted by: enigma_foundry at June 14, 2007 10:12 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page