Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Patent Thicket Literature Review (view source)
Revision as of 22:54, 6 March 2013
, 22:54, 6 March 2013no edit summary
It is not necessary for papers in the down group to even mention patent thickets. Much of the older work (pre-2000) won't because the term didn't exist. This make classifying papers into the down group difficult without area specific expertise. 47 papers were classified as being in the down group in step 2 of the process. However, the convergence process provided many other candidates.
===The Up group===
The references for these papers were then matched against one another to produce counts of the most cited papers within the core group. This process led to 313 papers that were cited by more than one paper in the core group. Of these 239 were not in the original sample of 251. Each of these 239 papers was briefly checked to see whether it should be added to the core group and 8 papers were added.
===BibTeX Entry Tagging===
Beginning with candidates for the up, we need to add custom BibTeX tags to each reference.
An example BibTeX reference is as follows:
@article{andrews2002genes,
title={Genes and patent policy: rethinking intellectual property rights},
author={Andrews, L.B.},
journal={Nature Reviews Genetics},
volume={3},
number={10},
pages={803--807},
year={2002},
publisher={Nature Publishing Group},
filename={Andrews (2002) - Genes And Patent Policy Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights.pdf}
}
We are going to clean up this reference, remove redundant tags and add new ones. A BibTeX entry must have a unique key. In the example above the key is 'andrews2002genes'. This conforms to the standard format, which is to use the first author's name, the year and the first word (or either the first two words or the second word if the first word is 'the', 'a', or similar common word). The entire entry is encapsulated by @article{...}, though you will also see 'techreport' or 'inproceedings' or similar as the container type. Then within the entry there is a series of tags of the form tag={}. These are comma seperated, and each have distinctive names.
The example reference looks pretty clean. We might use sentence case for the title, but the author is in the form LastName, FirstName/Initials form, and the journal and other information all look fine. For references with multiple authors the authors names should be seperated by ' and '. However, the publisher tag is redundant for an article (it isn't for a book), so it can be removed.
We are then going to add tags. For the '''up group''' we are going to add the following tags:
*abstract: Make sure it is all on one line with no carriage returns in it and is enclosed in the braces {}.
*discipline: 'Policy Report', 'Law', 'Econ', 'Mgmt', 'Biology', 'Physics', etc. Keep a list of the disciplines used (and see below).
*research_type: 'Theory' (if there are lots of equations or the paper is developing a written theory), 'Empirical' (if there are regressions), 'Discussion'. You can add two tags seperated by a comma if needed (i.e., Theory,Empirical).
*industry: The industry that the empirical results, theory, or discussion apply to, if there is one. Papers that talk about thickets in Nanotech should be classifed as Nanotech, etc.
*thicket_stance: Is the paper 'Pro' or 'Anti' the existance of patent thickets? Possible classifications might be: 'Pro', 'Assumed Pro' (for when the paper itself doesn't say that patent thickets exist, but does say that other people say that it exists and it moves forward using this assumption), 'Weakly Pro' (for when it says they might be a problem), 'Neutral', 'None', 'Weakly Anti' (for when it says that they probably aren't a problem), and 'Anti'.
*thicket_stance_extract: An extracted section or section of the text (as small as possible) as a single line to provide evidence of the stance
*thicket_def: The definition of what a patent thicket is explicitly or implicitly used in the paper. See below.
*thicket_def_extract: An extracted section or section of the text (as small as possible) as a single line to provide evidence of the definition
*tags: Comma seperated tags to describe what the paper is actually about or its key elements. Examples might be: Pools, Standards, SSOs, Oligopolies, Blocking Patents, etc.
For disciple, it isn't important to make a distinction between policy econ, business econ, and other types of econ. Likewise for management papers. For the thicket definition we are going to want to come up with categorizations of the definitions. I suggest that we keep a running list. Candidates might include 'Diversely-held Complementary Inputs', or 'One Firm With Blocking Patents', etc.
The corrected BibTeX reference for Andrews is then:
@article{andrews2002genes,
title={Genes And Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights},
author={Andrews, L.B.},
journal={Nature Reviews Genetics},
volume={3},
number={10},
pages={803--807},
year={2002},
abstract={Concerns about human gene patents go beyond moral disquiet about creating a commodity from a part of the human body and also beyond legal questions about whether genes are unpatentable products of nature. New concerns are being raised about harm to public health and to research. In response to these concerns, various policy options, such as litigation, legislation, patent pools and compulsory licensing, are being explored to ensure that gene patents do not impede the practice of medicine and scientific progress.},
discipline={Biology,Law},
research_type={Discussion},
industry={Genetics},
thicket_stance={Neutral},
thicket_stance_extract={Whatever policies society develops for gene patents, policymakers will be influenced by the fact that the ‘bio’ in biotechnology — the genes in the gene patents — comes from people. Researchers need the trust of those whom they study to get access to their tissue for research into diagnostics and cures. Using the biological resources of the public (and a substantial amount of public funding), genes have been discovered and patented. Now, policy makers are being asked to ensure that the public receives the benefits.},
thicket_def={Diversely-held Complementary Inputs},
thicket_def_extract={Economist Carl Shapiro elaborates on the problems created by a ‘patent thicket’. Using traditional economic analysis, he has shown how, when several monopolists exist that each control a different raw material needed for development of a product, the price of the resulting product is higher than if a single firm controlled trade in all of the raw materials or made the product itself. However, the combined profits of the producers are lower in the presence of complementary monopolies. So, if there are several patent holders whose permission is needed to create a gene therapy (and any one of them could block the production of the gene therapy), inefficiencies in the market are created, potentially harming both the patent holder and the patent users.},
tags={IPR Policy, Effects on Research},
filename={Andrews (2002) - Genes And Patent Policy Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights.pdf}
}
