DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Expert Group on Patent Aggregation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Expert Group on Patent Aggregation Report of the Expert Group on Patent Aggregation Research and Innovation EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate B – Innovation and European Research Area Unit B.3 – SMEs, financial instruments and State aid Contact: Peter Droell E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION Report of the Expert Group on Patent Aggregation Paola Giuri Denise Hirsch Krystyna Szepanowska-Kozlowska Hannes Selhofer John Temple Lang Nikolaus Thumm 2015 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 ISBN 978-92-79-41182-3 doi:10.2777/96371 © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 5 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 5 1.2 General problems in patent markets ................................................... 5 1.3 Patent pools.................................................................................... 6 1.4 Patent funds and other forms of intermediation .................................... 7 1.5 Recommendations ........................................................................... 8 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 10 2.1 Background and objectives ............................................................. 11 2.1.1 Background ........................................................................................ 11 2.1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................... 12 2.2 Working method ............................................................................ 14 3. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEMS IN PATENT MARKETS .................................... 17 3.1 General problems in the patent market ............................................. 18 3.1.1 The underlying concern: potentially valuable patents that remain unused .. 18 3.1.2 Lack of transparency ........................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Asymmetric information ....................................................................... 22 3.1.4 High transaction costs ......................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Difficulties in enforcing patents ............................................................. 23 3.2 Problems relevant for both owners and users ..................................... 23 3.2.1 Difficulties in patent valuation .............................................................. 23 3.2.2 Problems with patent quality ................................................................ 24 3.2.3 Problems due to patent owners' technology being incomplete or "immature"25 3.2.4 Negotiating mutually satisfactory licence terms ...................................... 25 3.3 Specific problems for patent owners ................................................. 26 3.3.1 Lack of finance ................................................................................... 26 3.3.2 Difficulties in securitisation ................................................................... 26 3.4 Specific problems for potential users of patents .................................. 27 3.4.1 Too many patents due to the rising complexity of technologies ................. 28 3.4.2 Costs & effort for obtaining licences ...................................................... 28 3.4.3 Growing number of standards ............................................................... 28 3.5 SME-specific challenges .................................................................. 29 3.5.1 Difficulties to conclude contracts with large firms on patent-related issues . 29 3.5.2 Lack of awareness for IPR issues .......................................................... 30 3.5.3 A lack of finance for legally protecting their IPR ...................................... 30 3.5.4 A lack of patent-related support services from intermediaries ................... 30 3.6 Conclusions on challenges in patent markets ..................................... 31 4. EVIDENCE ON PATENT POOLS ................................................................ 33 4.1 Definition and main types of patent pools .......................................... 33 4.2 Considerations on patent pools ........................................................ 35 4.2.1 General principles for patent pools ........................................................ 35 4.2.2 Opportunities ..................................................................................... 37 4.2.3 Challenges and concerns ...................................................................... 38 4.3 Conclusions on patent pools ............................................................ 42 5. EVIDENCE ON PATENT FUNDS AND OTHER FORMS OF AGGREGATION AND INTERMEDIATION ......................................................................... 43 5.1 Definition ..................................................................................... 43 5.2 Patent funds – types and evidence ................................................... 44 5.3 The case for / against state-supported patent funds ........................... 46 5.3.1 International examples of state-supported patent funds .......................... 46 5.3.2 European examples ............................................................................. 47 5.3.3 Assessment of the opportunities and risks .............................................. 49 5.4 Other forms of intermediation ......................................................... 50 5.5 Opportunities and challenges related to funds and other forms of intermediation ............................................................................... 53 5.5.1 Opportunities ..................................................................................... 53 5.5.2 Challenges ......................................................................................... 54 5.6 Conclusions on patent funds ............................................................ 55 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 57 6.1 Recommendations for improving the framework conditions for patent markets ....................................................................................... 57 6.2 Specific recommendations with regard to pools, funds and other types of intermediation ............................................................................... 60 7. ANNEXES ............................................................................................ 63 7.1 Annex I: Members of the expert group and meetings held ................... 63 7.2 Annex II: Experts interviewed ......................................................... 65 7.2.1 Experts who participated in the hearings ................................................ 65 7.2.2 Reviewers .......................................................................................... 67 7.3 Annex III: Questionnaire used in interviews and hearings .................... 68 7.4 Annex IV: Mandate of the Expert Group ............................................ 74 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction Background and objectives This report was produced by the expert group on patent aggregation. This group was convened by the European Commission to investigate whether there is a need for EU level intervention to foster the development of patent markets, in particular through aggregation of patents, with a focus on patent pools and funds. The work of the expert group builds on the publication of the Commission Staff Working Document "Towards enhanced patent valorisation for growth and jobs”1, the outcome of reflections of an earlier expert group on options for patent valorisation, as well as on a number of recent specific studies. The premise is that some patents would be more valuable, or would be more likely to be used, if they were aggregated, that is, if patents belonging to different owners were gathered together in such a way that single entities or groups could act as licensors of all the patents, or of as many of them as licensees might want to obtain licences for. Working method and schedule The expert group consisted of a core group of eight members, whose deliberations were complemented by invited experts (37 in total), each of whom was asked to attend one specific meeting for exchanges with the group. The group met seven times in Brussels between 17 October 2013 and 6 March 2014. Most meetings consisted of panel hearings of invited experts. In addition, further hearings with invited experts were conducted in February 2014 in Brussels, Munich
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M
    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?*
    Glory Days: Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?* JOHN “JAY” JURATA, JR. & EMILY N. LUKEN1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………...…………2 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 3 A. Patent Pools & Similar Arrangements...................................... 3 B. SEPs, FRAND, and Competition Law ....................................... 4 III. PATENT POOLS AND COMPETITION LAW ....................................... 6 A. Overview……………………………………………………………...6 B. Historical DOJ Business Review Letters on Patent Pools….….8 C. DOJ Avanci 5G Business Review Letter…………………………10 IV. SOME OF THE PROCOMPETITIVE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PATENT POOLS ARE NO LONGER ARE TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO FRAND- ENCUMBERED SEPS ..................................................................... 13 A. Market Power ......................................................................... 13 B. Reduced Transaction Costs ..................................................... 16 V. ANTICOMPETITIVE RISKS OF CERTAIN SEP POOLS ARE HIGHER TODAY COMPARED TO THE POOLS REVIEWED BY THE DOJ IN HISTORICAL BUSINESS REVIEW LETTERS .................................... 18 A. Licensing Agents Refusing to Comply with FRAND ............... 19 B. Structural Mechanisms Designed to Deter Adhering to FRAND Commitments ............................................................. 21 C. Including Non-SEPs to Collect Supra-FRAND Royalties ....... 25 D. Using Pools to Exploit
    [Show full text]
  • Standards-Essential Patents and Injunctive Relief
    April 2013 StandardS-ESSEntial PatEntS and injunctivE rEliEf StandardS-ESSEntial PatEntS and injunctivE rEliEf Table of ConTenTs Page I. InTroduCTIon 1 II. baCkground: The Standard-setting ProCess and InjunCTIve relIef To enforCe PaTenT rIghTs 2 a. SEPs and FRAND CommITmenTs 2 b. InjunCTIve relIef and exClusIon orders In PaTenT InfrIngemenT Cases 3 1. The United States 3 2. Rest of the World 4 III. AvaIlabIlITy of InjunCTIve relIef for InfrIngemenT of FRAND-enCumbered sePs under relevanT PaTenT laws 4 a. The unITed StaTes 4 1. Injunctions and FRAND-Encumbered SEPs in U.S. Courts 5 a) Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill.) 5 b) Microsoft v. Motorola (W.D. Wash.) 5 c) Apple v. Motorola (W.D. Wisc.) 6 2. Recent ITC Developments 6 a) The ’745 Investigation (Complainant: Motorola; Respondent: Apple) 7 b) The ’752 Investigation (Complainant: Motorola; Respondent: Microsoft) 7 c) The ’794 Investigation (Complainant: Samsung; Respondent: Apple) 8 d) Comments by Agencies and the Public Regarding FRAND-Encumbered SEPs in ITC Investigations 8 b. EuroPe 9 1. Germany 9 a) Orange Book Standard—The Framework for the FRAND Defense 9 b) Lower Court Application of Orange Book Standard 10 2. The Netherlands 11 3. France and the United Kingdom 12 C. AsIa 1 2 1. Japan 12 2. China 12 Iv. ApplICabIlITy of anTITrusT laws To Attempts To obTaIn InjunCTIve relIef wITh resPeCT To FRAND-enCumbered sePs 13 a. The unITed StaTes 13 1. District Court Decision in Apple v. Motorola 13 2. DOJ Investigation of Google/Motorola Mobility 14 3. FTC Antitrust Enforcement Actions 14 a) In the Matter of Robert Bosch GmbH 14 b) In the Matter of Google, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and Standards
    Patents and Standards A modern framework for IPR-based standardization FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry This study was carried out for the European Commission by and as part of the DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 978-92-79-35991-0 DOI: 10.2769/90861 © European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. About ECSIP The European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium, ECSIP Consortium for short, is the name chosen by the team of partners, subcontractors and individual experts that have agreed to work as one team for the purpose of the Framework Contract on ‘Industrial Competitiveness and Market Performance’. The Consortium is composed of Ecorys Netherlands (lead partner), Cambridge Econometrics, CASE, CSIL, Danish Technological Institute, Decision, Eindhoven University of Technology (ECIS), Euromonitor, Fratini Vergano, Frost & Sullivan, IDEA Consult, IFO Institute, MCI and wiiw, together with a group of 28 highly-skilled and specialised individuals. ECSIP Consortium p/a ECORYS Nederland BV Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam The Netherlands T.
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents. a Comprehensive Analysis of Cases
    Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases Authors: Chryssoula Pentheroudakis, Justus A. Baron Editor: Nikolaus Thumm 2017 EUR 28302 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy- making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Contact information European Commission, Joint Research Centre Address: Edificio Expo. c/Inca Garcilaso, 3. 41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488318 JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC104068 EUR 28302 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-64458-0 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2791/32230 Print ISBN 978-92-79-64459-7 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2791/193948 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. How to cite: Chryssoula Pentheroudakis, Justus A. Baron (2017) Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents. A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases. JRC Science for Policy Report. EUR 28302 EN; doi:10.2791/32230 All images © European Union 2017 Title: Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents. A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases Abstract The prospect of licensing patents that are essential to standards on an industry-wide scale is a major incentive for companies to invest in standardization activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Method Patents: Characters in Search of Legal Protection
    Business Method Patents: Characters in Search of Legal Protection Giuseppina Claudia Coniglione A thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS) Queen Mary, University of London United Kingdom September 2017 I, Giuseppina Claudia Coniglione, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowl- edged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection soft- ware to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Date: 22 September 2017 1 Abstract The aim of this research is to investigate the phenomenon of business method patents in Europe. Not only the issue of patentability of busi- ness methods is discussed, but also the possible strategic use of these patents and patent applications is explored. For this purpose, a data set has been specifically created, including all the applications submitted in the class G06Q (namely data processing systems or methods, specially adapted for administrative, commercial, financial, managerial, supervi- sion or forecasting purpose) at the EPO.
    [Show full text]
  • Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?
    Glory Days: Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits? JOHN “JAY” JURATA, JR.* EMILY N. LUKEN**1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 418 II. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 419 A. Patent Pools & Similar Arrangements ........................................... 419 B. SEPs, FRAND, and Competition Law............................................ 421 III. PATENT POOLS AND COMPETITION LAW ................................................... 423 A. Overview ........................................................................................ 423 B. Historical DOJ Business Review Letters on Patent Pools ............. 425 C. DOJ Avanci 5G Business Review Letter ........................................ 427 IV. SOME OF THE PROCOMPETITIVE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PATENT POOLS ARE NO LONGER TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO FRAND-ENCUMBERED SEPS .................................................................. 430 * © 2021 John “Jay” Jurata, Jr. ** © 2021 Emily N. Luken. 1. We are the Leader of the worldwide Antitrust and Competition Group at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and one of its members, respectively. We have provided legal advice to both licensors and licensees of standards-essential patents, including Continental, DTS, Hisense, Microsoft, and Panasonic, amongst other technology companies. The opinions set forth in this Article are our own
    [Show full text]
  • Motorola - Enforcement of Gprs Standard Essential Patents
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION CASE AT.39985 - MOTOROLA - ENFORCEMENT OF GPRS STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS (Only the English text is authentic) ANTITRUST PROCEDURE Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 Article 7 Regulation (EC) 1/2003 Date: 29/04/2014 This text is made available for information purposes only. A summary of this decision will be published in all EU languages in the Official Journal of the European Union. Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed. Those parts are replaced by a non-confidential summary in square brackets or are shown as […]. EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 29.04.2014 C(2014) 2892 final PUBLIC VERSION COMMISSION DECISION of 29.04.2014 addressed to Motorola Mobility LLC relating to proceedings under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement Case AT.39985 - Motorola - Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents (Only the English text is authentic) EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 2. The undertakings concerned ........................................................................................ 3 2.1. Motorola ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Apple ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Other undertakings
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Pools and Aggregation
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 10-2020 Intellectual Property Pools and Aggregation Jorge L. Contreras Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Contreras IP Licensing and Transactions Chapter 27 CHAPTER 27 – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POOLS AND AGGREGATION Summary Contents A. Theories of IP Pooling: Efficiency and Enablement B. Antitrust Analysis of Patent Pools Standard Oil (Indiana) v. United States U.S. Dept. Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property C. Standards Patent Pools U.S. Dept. Justice MPEG-2 Business Review Letter D. Complementarity and Essentiality in Patent Pools U.S. Dept. Justice 3GPP Business Review Letter As we saw in Chapter 25, agreements among competitors that restrain trade can violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Such anticompetitive agreements can involve trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property rights. If they seek to fix prices, allocate markets or impose similar restraints on competition, such agreements are per se illegal; otherwise they are evaluated under the rule of reason, balancing their pro-competitive and anticompetitive effects. In this chapter, we will consider an important category of agreements among competitors – those in which intellectual property rights are combined or “pooled” for various purposes. The first documented patent pool in the U.S. was formed in 1856 by three leading manufacturers of sewing machines.1 Since then, IP pools have evolved and The crux of an IP pooling grown in complexity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essentiality Test for Patent Pools
    UC Berkeley Recent Work Title The Essentiality Test for Patent Pools Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1wf59608 Author Gilbert, Richard Publication Date 2009-09-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Forthcoming in Rochelle Dreyfuss, Diane Zimmerman and Harry First (eds.), Working within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, Oxford University Press. The Essentiality Test for Patent Pools Richard Gilbert* I. Introduction Antitrust policy for the pooling of patents and other intellectual property rights has undergone a dramatic transformation since the first cases were decided at the beginning of the twentieth century. This transformation generally reflects developments in economics that provide a better understanding of the characteristics of patent pools that warrant antitrust scrutiny. The change, however, was slow, and the U.S. antitrust agencies did not clarify their enforcement principles with respect to patent pools until the publication by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission of Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition, released in April 2007 (“IP Report”).1 The DOJ/FTC IP Report concludes that a patent pool is unlikely to raise antitrust concerns if: • The pool is limited to patents that are essential to implement the standard, • The pool grants non-exclusive licenses that do not prevent licensees from developing alternative technologies, • Patentees grant non-exclusive licenses to the pool and retain the right to license their patents separately outside the pool, and • Licensees are required to grant back nonexclusive licenses to use patents they hold that are essential to comply with the technology. The definition of an essential patent can take different meanings.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patent (Seps)
    (Last date for submission of comments is now 22nd April, 2016) DISCUSSION PAPER ON STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY ON FRAND TERMS Government of India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce & Industry 1st March 2016 Table of Contents 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 4. Overview of Standards and Standard Essential Patents ......................................................................... 5 4.1. Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 5 4.2. Standard Essential Patent ................................................................................................................... 7 4.3. Patent Hold-Up ................................................................................................................................... 8 4.4. Standard Essential Patents & FRANDS ................................................................................................ 8 5. Standard Essential Patents vis-a-vis Competition Laws .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Pools
    Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools August, 1999 Revision Robert P. Merges Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professor of Law and Technology University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) School of Law © 1998: RPM I. Introduction A. The Theoretical Literature 1. IPRs and Transaction Costs 2. IPRs and Property-Liability Rule Theory 3. The Effects of Lower Enforcement Costs II. Emergence of Exchange Institutions in the Presence of Property Rights – Patent Pools A. Mega Pools B. Small, Contract-based Pools C. Recent Pools in Consumer Electronics: MPEG-2 and DVD 1 1. MPEG-2 2. DVD 3. Other New Pools D. Quasi-Pools: A Positive Role for Patents as “Bargaining Chips” III. Antitrust Review of Patent Pools A. The Department of Justice’s New Outlook B. The MPEG-2 and DVD Review Letters C. Complementarity and Transaction Costs IV. Conclusion 2 I. Introduction In this Chapter I hope to accomplish three things: briefly summarize trends in the economic theory of intellectual property rights (IPRs); describe some ideas of my own on the emergence of IPR exchange institutions, and describe how an emphasis on institutions fits into existing theory; and ground these issues in a discussion of collective IPR licensing, in particular, patent pools. I begin with a discussion of how transactions have crept into IP theory, and then turn to an examination of actual institutions that have evolved out of the need for various industries to conduct a large volume of IPR transactions. A. The Theoretical Literature Economists have been arguing the merits of IPRs since at least the eighteenth century, though serious theorizing began only in the nineteenth.1 From the beginning the literature was concerned primarily with the ultimate question of whether IPRs could be justified.
    [Show full text]