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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barriers to entry, intellectual property, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and copyrights eat their young.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents and copyrights eat their young.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's try changing the PTO's incentives
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is that fricken possible?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIPO
WIPO, it's squeezably soft! Yet it's also one of the strongest tissues you can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIPO looking at the down side of IP
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIPO article actually strongly pro IP
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]