Innovation needs patents reform

Research Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 403-423

  Kingston, William ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Compulsory licensing; Dispute resolution; Patent reform; Second tier protection

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347140582     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00090-1     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bochnovic J. The Inventive Step. 1982;Weinheim, Basel, Verlag Chemie.
2. Bouju A. Patent Infringement Litigation Costs. 1988;Longman for the Commission of the European Communities, London.
3. Bugbee B.W. Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law. 1967;Public Affairs Press, Washington, DC.
4. Calvert I.A., Sofocleous M. Interference statistics for fiscal years 1986 to 1988. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 71:1989;399-410.
5. Calvert I.A., Sofocleous M. Interference statistics for fiscal years 1989 to 1991. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 74:1992;822-826.
6. Calvert I.A., Sofocleous M. Interference statistics for fiscal years 1992 to 1994. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 77:1995;417-422.
7. Report. 1992;U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
8. Creel T.L. Guide To Patent Arbitration. 1987;Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC.
9. European Commission, 1996: Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases, 1996 O.J. (L. 77) 20.
10. Federico P.J. Origins of section 103. Witherspoon J.F. Nonobviousness - The Ultimate Condition of Patentability. 1978;Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC.
11. Federico P.J. Operation of the Patent Act of 1790. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 72:1990;373-385.
12. Gilfillan S.C. The Sources of Invention. 1935;University Press, Chicago.
13. Heggen A. Erfindungschuts und Industrialisierung in Preussen, 1793-1877. 1975;Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen.
14. Heller M.A. The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx and markets. Harvard Law Review. 111:1998;621-688.
15. Heller M.A., Eisenberg R. Can patents prevent innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science. 280:1998;698-701.
16. Hobhouse L.J. Biogen. Reported Patents Cases. 25:1995;114.
17. Janis M.D. Second tier patent protection. Harvard International Law Journal. 40:1999;151-219.
18. Kingston W. The Political Economy of Innovation. 1984;Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
19. Kingston W. Direct Protection of Innovation. 1987;Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht.
20. Kingston W. Compulsory licencing with capital payments as an alternative to monopoly grants for intellectual property. Research Policy. 23(5):1994;1275-1289. (November).
21. Kingston W. Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes. European Journal of Law and Economics. 2(1):1995;85-92.
22. Kingston, W., 2000. Antibiotics, invention and innovation. Research Policy, in press.
23. Kitch E.W. The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law and Economics. 20:1977;265-290.
24. Kronz H. Patent protection for innovations: a model. European Intellectual Property Review. 5:1983;178-183.
25. Lemley M.A. The economics of improvement in intellectual property law. Texas Law Review. 75:1997;990-1084.
26. Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics. 38:1995;463-495.
27. Levin R.C., Klevorick A.K., Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. Yale study of R&D appropriability methods. Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. Special issue on microeconomics (no. 3) of Brookings Economic Papers. 1987;783-831. Washington, D.C.
28. Mansfield E.M., Schwartz E., Wagner S. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study. Economic Journal. 1981;904.
29. Mazzolini R., Nelson R.R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy. 27:1998;273-284.
30. Merges R.P. Uncertainty and the standard of patentability. High Technology Law Journal. 7:1992;1-70.
31. Merges R.P. Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents. Tennessee Law Review. 62:1994;75-106.
32. Merges R.P., Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review. 90:1990;839-916.
33. Merz J.F., Pace N.M. Trends in patent litigation: the apparent influence of strengthened patents attributable to the court of appeals for the federal circuit. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 76:1994.
34. Mintz H.H., O'Rourke C.L. The patentability standard in historical perspective: "invention" to section 103 "nonobviousness" Witherspoon J.F. Nonobviousness - The Ultimate Condition of Patentability. 1978;Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC.
35. Mowery D.C. America's industrial resurgence: how strong, how durable? Issues in Science and Technology. 15:1999;41-48. (Spring).
36. Noble D.R. The corporation as inventor: patent law reform and patent monopoly. America by Design. 1980;Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Chap. 6.
37. Plasseraud, Y., Savignon, F., 1986. L'Etat et l'Invention. Paris, La Documentation Française.
38. Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension. 1967;Anchor Books, Garden City, NJ.
39. Reichman J.H. Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. Columbia Law Review. 94:1994;2432-2558.
40. Reichman J.H., Samuelson P. Intellectual property rights in data? Vanderbilt Law Review. 50:1997;52-166.
41. Rich G.F. Congressional intent - or, who wrote the Patent Act of 1952? Witherspoon J.F. Nonobviousness - The Ultimate Condition of Patentability. 1978;Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC.
42. Roycroft R.W., Kash D. The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century. 1999;Francis Pinter, London.
43. Rowland B.I. Obvious to try - a nonstandard of patentability. Witherspoon J.F. Nonobviousness - The Ultimate Condition of Patentability. 1978;Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC.
44. Scott R.G. Congressional Record of debate on Bill H.R. 2696, March 18, 1998. 1998;H1243 United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Representative of Virginia.
45. The State of Small Business: a Report of the President, 1997. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
46. Thurow L.C. Needed: a new system of intellectual property rights. Harvard Business Review. 75:1997;95-103. September/October.
47. Waksman S.A. The Antibiotic Era. 1975;The Waksman Foundation of Japan, Tokyo.
48. Yorke, B., 1999. Patenting in the Next Millennium. Paper read to the European Union Patinnova Conference, Thessaloniki. Mimeo., copy on file with author.