Chris Rasch
Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:48:41 -0800
The League for Programming Freedom has a dated bibliography relevant to software patents: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/index Some of the more relevant entries include: On the complex economics of patent scope by Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson Columbia Law Review, May 1990, V90 #4, pp 839-916 Argues that product patents and broad basic patents slow progress. Contains some good case study information. Forbes, 3 September 1990, p 46. article on how patents can have a chilling effect on development (p 46, 3 September 1990) Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose, "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of Economic History 10 (May 1950)--generally critical of patents Eric Schiff, _Industrialization without National Patents: The Netherlands, 1869-1919, Switzerland, 1850-1907_ (Princeton University Press, 1971)--suggests that those countries did just fine without a patent system America By Design By David F. Noble Knopf, 1977 Not a basic text but an account of the history of US patent law, among other things. Noble argues that patent law has been converted from protecting inventors to protecting the corporations inventors work for. An economic review of the patent system: A study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate by Fritz Machlup Forward dated June 30, 1958 Critical of patent system: it protects that which would become public knowledge anyway, rewards to inventors are slight, incentives to research not otherwise done questionable. There is no empirical evidence to decide the conflict of theories, however, so safest policy conclusion is to muddle along without changes. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study by Edwin Masfield, Mark Schwartz, and Samuel Wagner The Economic Journal, 91 (December 1981), pp 907-918 >From the conclusion: "Contrary to the assumption of many economic models, a patent frequently does not result in a 17-year monopoly over the relevant innovation. Patents do tend to increase imitation costs, particularly in the drug industry, but excluding drugs, patent protection did not seem essential for the development and introduction of at least three-fourths of the patented innovations studied here." The use of patents for the protection of technological innovation: A case study of selected Swedish firms by Ove Granstrand UNCTAD/ITP/TEC/13, 18 September 1990 >From the "Summary and Conclusion": "(viii) For both large and small firms, it was confirmed that patents were regarded as more appropriate for product innovation, while secrecy ws considred to offer better protection for process innovation." "For small firms, patents were of no significant relevance to prevent imiatation. Such firms rely more on secrecy and technologicla lead time. The purpose of patenting for the small firms engaged in patenting (5 out of 11), was mainly to create bargaining power in negotiations relating to financing, licensing or co-operation. For large firms, patents are often viewed as an alternative to secrecy and the propensity to patent is a function of expectations. The firms tend to apply for patents in cases when reverse engineering is believed not to be costly and infringements could be easily detected. Another resaons for patenting is when the enforcement of the patent law is regarded as effective. Still other reasons for patentign are government requirements for ublic disclosure (chemicals, agro-industry) and the collective behaviour of the firms, which causes firms to patent if one firm starts patenting in an area that was not previously covered by patents. (ix) Regarding the effectiveness of patents, the firms regretted the lack of international standards and the limited effectiveness of patent protection. ... (x) ... Small firms have a higher number of patents per employee and per Swedish crowns spent on research. However, they also have a lower share of commercially exploited patents and a higher proportion of patenting costs of the total R and D expenditures. This indicates that small firms are relatively more innovative. ... (xii) Patents as an instrument to stimulate innovative activities appeared to be of little relevance for small firms. It was found that no significant changes in the R and D behaviour would take place if the patent protection time were reduced or extended. Aslo, for large firms, the R and D behaviour seems to be rather independent of the availability of patenting protection. The survey showed that increased patent protection is likely to provide, at most, a modest stimulus for R and D activities. Chemical, and particularly pharmaceutical, firms appear to be more sensitive to such changes." International association for the study of common property maintains some links that may be of relevance: http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/information.html Brian Martin's article Against Intellectual Property may have some references of interest: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html Not directly related to software patents, but Hal Varian and Carl Shapiro's book _Information Rules_ may be useful: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/articles.html Hope this helps! Chris Rasch