WIPO Commissioned Study On Intellectual Property Acting As A Barrier To Entry
from the nice-to-see dept
Eric Goldman points us to an interesting new study, put together by the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School, done at the request of WIPO to look through all of the research on how intellectual property acts as a “barrier to entry,” (pdf) within specific markets. The report itself isn’t earth-shattering — and, in fact, mostly just lists out all of the different studies it looked at. However, it is a source of nearly 500 research efforts on the question. Most of the research covers patents, but there was some in other areas as well. But the key point is the fact that these questions about how IP can hinder market entry are even being asked at all — especially by a group like WIPO, who has a history of being somewhat maximalist on the topic, but has shown some signs of softening in the past few years. It’s nice to see a group like WIPO even admitting that IP can be a barrier to entry, let alone commissioning a group to compile evidence on the topic.
Filed Under: barriers to entry, intellectual property, wipo
Comments on “WIPO Commissioned Study On Intellectual Property Acting As A Barrier To Entry”
Yeah, but just wait until their recommendation is to give everyone three free patents at birth to level the playing field.
Patents and copyrights eat their young.
Patents are devastating the tech sector and there are so many unused patents that an untold number of products that could be marketed never will be because of patents. This amounts to billions and even trillions of dollars of lost revenue and lost taxes.
It used to be that patents had to be very specific and include a plan on implementing them. Now the patent office entertains very general ideas that in most cases are obvious to anyone.
If we must have patents there should be a use it or lose it clause. The same for copyrights.
Competing companies and interests should be able to sue patent holders who have no intention of developing their patent. This would put an end to the patent troll and give a great incentive for those who file patents to develop the idea.
Re:
I think that would reinforce the same negative outsets that we currently have.
Take away the patent office. Patent trolls wouldn’t have a legal hold on the marketplace.
Barring that, make the accuser pay all court fees with no statutory damages. Merely provable economic harm in the market place.
Evidence? Who needs evidence. IP is good because I said so!! The nerve of some people, considering evidence over my opinion. What kind of logic is that?
Patents and copyrights eat their young.
“Patents are devastating the tech sector and there are so many unused patents that an untold number of products that could be marketed never will be because of patents.”
Yeah, but evidence is obsolete. Come on, nobody uses evidence anymore because everyone knows that evidence has been replaced by my opinion. The new and innovative way to find truth.
Re:
Dude you are either off today or just learning to troll. In either case do better next time.
Re: Re:
Heph, this might be a joke man…
Re:
Your /sarc detector is broken.
Re:
Oh, you want evidence? Fine! My opinion is evidence enough. It’s more than enough evidence. What more can you ask for?
Re:
Ahh, the wonders of Poe’s Law.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the government handing out exclusive monopoly rights to collect rents somehow hinders newcomers entering the same market?!
How is that fricken possible?!
Let's try changing the PTO's incentives
To file a patent you have to pay a fee.
Make the fee very high if the PTO rejects the patent for any valid reason. (Novelty, prior art, non patentable subject matter, etc)
Make the fee very low if the PTO grants a patent.
This will both speed up the process of rejecting patents, and will significantly increase the percentage of rejected patents.
This will also give the PTO incentive to crowd source the finding of prior art, etc. In fact the PTO could pay a bounty to anyone who can show grounds that lead to rejecting the patent application. (eg, it will create jobs)
WIPO
Because I know what WIPO stands for, and what the IP in WIPO stands for, I tend to think of it like this.
WIPO, it’s squeezably soft! Yet it’s also one of the strongest tissues you can buy.
Re:
Jay I agree, There should be no statutory damages and all awards should only be of actual damage done. Lawsuits should only be an avenue to make people whole not make them rich.
WIPO looking at the down side of IP
As an IP attorney, GREAT! IP is hugely abused, and it is great to see anyone questioning the impacts!
To me, there is a balancing act. IP as I practice it (which I believe I can show is exactly what the founding fathers intended) has (sometimes decisive) benefits. IP as it is practiced generally (“large entity” or “defensive” IP), being based on the “Golden Rule of business”; the one with the gold makes the rules – is, IMO, often unAmerican and destructive.
WIPO article actually strongly pro IP
The WIPO article has some excellent quotes:
“most authors agree that IP rights remain critical for the efficient functioning of markets”
Even one of you Techdirt fools knows that the right to exclude someone from practicing an invention serves as a barrier to entry into the market for that invention. The founding fathers found that desirable to reward inventors in order to promote progress.
WIPO merely attempted in this study to assemble the articles describing the barrier effect and then concluded that the consensus is it’s a good thing for developed countries, but that there are widely varying views as to whether IP protection is good for developing countries. Since we are in the US not the Congo, this article says strong IP protection is good for us .
Leave it to Techdirt to try to distort that into something critical of IP when it is just the opposite. You clowns are pathetic dupes of Masnick.