7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Latest The latest version is:
==Definitions==<pdf>File:McN-PatentThicket-Egan-092215.pdf</pdf>
A) '''Saturated Invention Spaces:''' The earliest definition of a patent thicket that we found is in Teece (1998), who points out a simple issue with patents. We refer to this as ‘saturated invention spaces’ and describe it as when a single firm, or a small number of firms, successfully patents an entire technological area. (p.15)* '''''Coordination: Imperfect competition: a small number of firms hold all possible patent rights in an area'''''==Codification==
B) '''Diversely-held Complimentary Inputs (DHCI):''' 1) products require complementary patented inputs; 2) these inputs are diversely-held (iSee the [[Patent Thicket Strategic Planning]] page for future steps.e. held by N patent-holders); and 3) patent-holders set their license prices independently. (Shapiro, pg.17)* '''''Coordination: patent holders determine licensing rates independently'''''
C) '''Overlapping Patents:'''#The second most common foundation See the [[PTLR Codification]] page for a patent thicket issue relies on overlapping patents. Patent overlaps can be horizontal (i.e. though patents that are largely adjacent to one another) or vertical (i.e. when patents are related through cumulative innovation). Horizontal overlaps arise because patent rights are imperfectly defined property rights. (p.20)#Refinement patents and research tool patents could result in vertically overlapping patent rights (or at least contractual rights). (p.21)* '''''Imperfectly defined property rights: wasteful duplication of licensing expenditure'''''details
D) '''Gaming See the Patent System:''' There are information asymmetries between a patent applicant and the patent office and a patent applicant may take some inappropriate action, for example by applying [[PTLR Process]] page for a patent that is not novel or is obvious. Such an inappropriate action can impose costs on the patent office and may generate negative externalities, imposing costs on genuine innovators. We refer to this situation as ‘gaming the patent system’. (p.21)*'''''Imperfect competition: a small number of firms hold all possible patent rights in an area'''''details
===Relative Definition Quotes=== ShapiroPick 5 files at random from: "a dense web of overlapping intellectual property rights that a company must hack its way through in order to actually commercialize new technology" (p.3-4) Kiley: "Those operating at the beginnings of the road are most insistent on their right to nail down leverage that will remain formidable despite market place rejection of the uses to which they say their inventions may be put. The frank aim of these early stage workers is to control ultimate applications discovered by others." (p. 8) ==Current List of Papers== ===Processed papers=== ===Files===Dropbox\coauthoredprojects\Egan and Teece\CandidatePapers
Untangling the Economics of Patent Thickets (view source)
Revision as of 15:43, 2 September 2020
, 15:43, 2 September 2020no edit summary
{{AcademicPaper
|Has title=Untangling the Economics of Patent Thicket Literature ReviewThickets
|Has author=Ed Egan, David Teece
|Has RAs=Lauren Bass,
|Has paper status=Working paper
}}
==Latest Progress==
The PDF-to-Text converter, the key terms finder, and phrase extraction scripts all work well and have been tested. The Google Scholar Web Crawler is being worked on by Christy Warden, current status unknown.
192 text versions of papers have been assembled in "Candidate Papers by LB." These were used as a test set for developing an analysis protocol for the entire paper. An analysis protocol has been developed that involves taking the counts of each term by topic per paper to assign each paper 1-4 topics. The process also counts the number of key terms in each paper for relevance, the number of modern terms, the year of the paper, the number of cost terms, the area of the paper, and the mentions of particular authors. All of this analysis is then dumped into artifacts. The analysis protocol is currently hardcoded. Once a set list of terms has been established, a soft-coded version should be able to be developed (in progress).
Larger test set desired to be analyzed and soft-coded on.
==The Paper==
\coauthoredprojects\Egan and Teece\McN-PatentThicket-Egan-092215.pdf
This file is posted at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/untangling-patent-thicket-literature
==Test Run==
Example BibTeX:
@article{BibTeXKeyGoesHere,
title={},
author={},
journal={},
year={},
abstract={},
discipline={},
research_type={},
industry={},
thicket_stance={},
thicket_stance_extract={},
thicket_def={},
thicket_def_extract={},
tags={},
filename={}
}
===Files===
List them here:*Cockburn MacGarvie (2006) - Entry And Patenting In The Software Industry.pdf*Murray Stern (2007) - Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis*...*Current directory containing candidate papers...*Processed BibTeX master file...
Do the following:
*Create a new text file in the dropbox. Note where the file is saved!
*Find each paper on Google Scholar and put the BibTeX entry into the text file
*Add the fields from the sample entry above and file them out as follows:
**Disciple: publication type
**Research_type: 'Types' (see above)
**Industry: industries (see above)
**thicket_def_extract: The text from the paper that you will use to decide the thicket definition
**thicket_def: one or more of DHCI, Saturated, Overlapping, Gaming, etc.
**tags: hash tags for modern terms and topic key words, e.g., #Probabilistic, #PatentPool, etc.
**Filename: Only download the file if we don't have it in '''Candidate Papers'''. Put the file name in this tag.
==Maybe Important Files==
*PTLRUp.bib - Another bibliography, additions or subtractions unknown
*Files in C:\Users\Ed\Dropbox\coauthoredprojects\Egan and Teece\ThicketWiki
**Particularly: CoreWithNewCoreForSorting-rev.txt
==.PL files==
