The use of USPTO "continuation" applications in the patenting of software: Implications for free and open source

Law and Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 128-151

  Graham, Stuart J H ^a,b,c,d   Mowery, David C ^e,f  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Geographic Information Systems   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27844560232     PISSN: 02658240     EISSN: 14679930     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2004.00194.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Attridge, D., and G. Corbett (2004) "Patent and Antitrust, Happy Together?" Legal Times 15 March.
2. Child, Simon (2003) "Open Source and Intellectual Property," MyITAdvisor. National Computing Center, 22 March.
3. Frank, Steven (2003) "Will patents pillage open source?" CNET News 16 April.
4. Free Software Foundation (1991) "Preamble," General Public License. Boston: Free Software Foundation.
5. Glazier, S. (1997) Patent Strategies for Business. Washington, D.C.: LBI Institute.
6. Graham, S. J. H. (2004) "Patenting in the Shadow of Secrecy: Innovators' Uses of U.S. Patent Office Continuation Practice, 1975-2002." In Continuation, Complementarity, and Capturing Value: Three Studies Exploring Firms' Complementary Uses of Appropriability Mechanisms in Technological Innovation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
7. Graham, S. J. H., and D. C. Mowery (2003) "Intellectual Property Protection in the U.S. Software Industry." In The Patent System in the Knowledge-Based Economy, edited by W. Cohen & S. Merrill. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
8. Graham, S. J. H., B. H. Hall, D. Harhoff, and D. C. Mowery (2003) "Post-issue Patent 'Quality Control:' A Comparative Study of U.S. Patent Reexaminations and European Patent Oppositions." In The Patent System in the Knowledge-Based Economy, edited by W. Cohen & S. Merrill. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
9. Hall, B. H., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg (2000) Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 7741. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Hall, B. H., and R. H. Ziedonis (2001) "The Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-1994," Rand Journal of Economics 32: 101-28.
11. Harhoff, D., and M. Reitzig (2000) Determinants of Opposition Against EPO Patent Grants: TheCase of Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology. CEPR Working Paper. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
12. Kortum, S., and J. Lerner (1998) "What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting." Research Policy 28: 1-22.
13. Kuan, Jennifer W. (2001) Open Source Software as Consumer Integration into Production. Stanford University Institute for Economic Policy Research Working Paper. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Institute for Economic Policy Research.
14. Lanjouw, J., and J. Lerner (1997) The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 6296. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15. Lanjouw, J., and M. Schankerman (1997) Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 6267. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Lee, G. K., and R. E. Cole (2000) The Linux Kernel Development as a Model of Knowledge Creation. Mimeo. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.
17. Lee, G. K., and R. E. Cole (2003) "From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development," Organization Science 14: 633-49.
18. Lemley, M. A. (2001) "Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office," Northwestern University Law Review 95(4).
19. Lerner, J., and J. Tirole (2000) The Simple Economics of Open Source. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 7600. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20. LizardTech, Inc. (n.d.) LizardTech's Statement on DjVu Open Source Licensing. Available at http://www.lizardtech.com.
21. Magrab, E. Brendan (1993) "Patent Validity Determinations of the ITC: Should U.S. District Courts Grant Them Preclusive Effect?," Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society 75: 125, 127-35.
22. Menell, P. (1989) "An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Application Programs," Stanford Law Review 41: 1045-1104.
23. Merges, R. P. (1996) "A Comparative Look at Intellectual Property Rights and the Software Industry." In The International Computer Software Industry: A Comparative Study of Industry Evolution and Structure, edited by D. C. Mowery. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
24. Merges, R. P. (1999) "As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform," Berkeley Law and Technology Law Journal 14: 577-615.
25. Mowery, D. C. (1999) "The Computer Software Industry." In The Sources of Industrial Leadership, edited by D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
26. Mowery, D. C., and T. S. Simcoe (2002) "Is the Internet a U.S. Invention? An Economic and Technological History of Computer Networking." Research Policy 31: 1369-87.
27. Mozilla (n.d.) Public License version 1.1. Available at http://Mozilla.org.
28. National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) (1979) Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works. Washington, D.C.: CONTU.
29. Perens, Bruce (2003) Preparing for the Intellectual Property Offensive. Available at http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld.
30. Quillen, C., and O. Webster (2001) "Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the United States Patent Office," Federal Circuit Bar Journal 11: 1-21.
31. Regents of the University of California (n.d.) Berkeley Software Distribution License. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California.
32. Samuelson, P. (1984) "CONTU Revisited: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Computer Programs in Machine-Readable Form," Duke Law Journal 1984: 663-769.
33. Somaya, D. (2003) "Strategic Determinants of Decisions not to Settle Patent Litigation," Strategic Management Journal 24: 17-38.
34. Trajtenberg, M., A. Jaffee, and R. Henderson (1997) "University versus Corporate Patents: A Window on the Basicness of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology 5: 19-50.
35. Wagner, J. (2003) "SCO Forced to Show Evidence," InternetNews 5 December.