DOCSLIB.ORG

Cross-National Network Diffusion of Crowdsourcing Innovation Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cross-National Network Diffusion of Crowdsourcing Innovation Policy Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences j 2018 Cross-National Network Diffusion of Crowdsourcing Innovation Policy: Peer to Patent Helen K. Liu The University of Hong Kong [email protected] Abstract government initiatives to promote transparency and data access [5, 6], less attention has been paid to This study examines network factors in the cross- smaller yet innovative policy diffusions that have national diffusion of a recent crowdsourcing taken place concurrently with the open government innovation in the public sector, called Peer to Patent. movement [7]. Policy diffusion theory, as applied to informational Previous research has demonstrated the diffusion network exchange, suggests that information about process underlying large-scale adoption of a innovation will be communicated through social technological innovation across countries e.g., [8, 9]. networks among policy decision makers. Building on However, we know little about the cross-national case studies from five countries—the United States, diffusion of small-scale innovation, especially at the Australia, South Korea, Japan, and the United agency level, which is less covered by the media and Kingdom—that have adopted Peer to Patent, this thus less visible to the public. study finds that the pattern of adoption is best Furthermore, previous studies have demonstrated explained by the underlying network structure of that policy entrepreneurs, institutional designs, and professional and institutional actors that allow culture are important contributors to the process of policymakers to exchange ideas and learn from innovation diffusion [9]. Bennett (1997) argues that others. The informational network framework transnational learning and communication fulfill includes epistemic communities, international distinct and essential roles in policy diffusion. A organizations, and globalized corporate entities and network perspective approach allows us to link these is affected by other mediating factors such as factors together and to examine the diffusion process regulations, peer-to-peer relations, and technology. more holistically [10]. However, further empirical Policy transfer is thus a complex concept that research is needed [11]. includes multiple streams of transnational Peer to Patent (PTP) provides a unique case for communication and exchange. understanding the diffusion of technological innovation across five countries during the open government movement from a network perspective. Because the adoption of PTP requires a change in the 1. Introduction patent review process to engage members of the general public as reviewers, adapting to PTP involves Various types of crowdsourcing have been more than just a technology adjustment or adoption, adopted in the public sector to improve the efficiency but also entails a transformation of the operation of and quality of public services as well as to increase government services [1]. Previous studies, mostly in public participation and engagement. Research has law journals, have examined and provided legal examined the potential costs and benefits [1, 2], justification for this emerging incorporation of peer designs [3], and adoption processes [4] of review in the patent application process [12, 13]. The crowdsourcing within initiatives aimed at increasing adoption of PTP requires substantial changes in government openness since 2009. Although many regulation and supportive resources. studies have focused on the diffusion of open URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50175 Page 2287 ISBN: 978-0-9981331-1-9 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) As this innovative program has created notable to participate in community review patent pilot” form, ripple effects and been diffused to numerous which indicates that they will be notified of their countries, its diffusion process deserves a careful submission’s status within 30 days. Once accepted, study. Therefore, this paper examines factors that participating applications are open for public review have influenced the policy diffusion of PTP from the for 3 months from the date of posting and no more United States to four other countries from 2007 to than 4 months from the date of publication, a much 2011. After an explanation of the program, we review shorter time frame than with the regular application relevant literature to reveal factors that can advance procedures. The review of applications follows a our understanding of the adoption of policy five-step process that involves the public at each step, innovation across nations. We then analyze the PTP as described in Figure 2 [14]. The steps are as follows: diffusion process itself. (1) Review and discussion of patent applications in the community: Participants can find 2. What is Peer to Patent? and review applications on the platform, including an application list, tag cloud, activity page, application page, discussion page, prior art page, and additional PTP incorporates an online peer review system information. into the existing patent review process. It was (2) Research and find prior art: Participants can initially developed by Prof. Beth Simone Noveck of search and post prior art through the prior art page. the New York Law School (NYLS) in cooperation (3) Upload prior art relevant to claims: with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Participants can then submit prior art to the website. which launched the first PTP pilot on June 15, 2007 (4) Annotate and evaluate submitted prior art: [14]. Traditionally, examiners at the USPTO To reduce the problem of information overload, the followed a closed and internal patent application patent examiner reviews only the top 10 prior art process. This traditional model created a backlog of references. Participants can add annotations to posted applications because the system could not respond to research references or rank prior art by selecting the rapid changes in various industries. In contrast, PTP “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” symbols below each applies a community collaboration-based approach to item. These comments and rankings determine which draw knowledge from the open-source community, references make the top 10. so as to alleviate the problem of examiner (5) Selected prior art references to USPTO: At unfamiliarity with newly emerging and rapidly the end of the review period, the top 10 prior art changing areas such as software development [7]. In references are forwarded to USPTO for patent such relatively new fields, the USPTO databases do examiners to use in making the final decision. not contain much “prior art,” a legal term for previous patents, or evidence guiding examiners to make quality decisions. Figure 1 shows the web interface of PTP in the United States. Figure 2. Peer review process within PTP The international diffusion of PTP took place in the 5 years following its initial implementation in the United States, with four other countries adopting the model. In Japan, a sister PTP program called Community Patent Review was developed in 2008, followed by PTP Japan in 2011. Australia adopted Figure 1. Peer to Patent protocol, from PTP in 2009 and South Korea in 2010. In 2011, the www.peertopatent.com UK launched its program jointly with the United States. As a result, this policy innovation was quickly The PTP team builds a platform to match diffused to patent offices in five countries that had prospective applicants with volunteer reviewers. traditionally implemented closed models, connecting Prospective applicants first submit a signed “Consent them to outside communities for the first time. Page 2288 To understand the influence of network factors on diffusion [10, 23, 24]. Lazer (2005) argues that this policy diffusion, we will systematically examine “states, in an informational network perspective, are each case, discussing its background, process of simply policy choosers and information producers” adoption, relevant stakeholders, and outcomes. (p. 53) [10]. He further explains that international Before that, we provide a brief literature review and diffusion of policy innovation requires informational summarize our methodology. interdependence between the nations involved. Such informational interdependence occurs when one 3. Policy diffusions nation learns about or acknowledges the policy decision made in another nation. Lazer (2005) 3.1. Factors influencing policy diffusion proposes a network perspective to understand the actors and institutions that disseminate and transfer information so as to produce policy diffusion. In In a recent review article on policy diffusion of e- doing so, he echoes Dolowitz and Marsh’s (1996) government, Zhang et al. (2014) report that emphasis on the importance of actors in the policy technological, organizational, and environmental diffusion process. factors influence the diffusion of e-government. At the domestic level, previous studies on the e- Technologically, the advancement of information and government law have shown empirically how communication technologies promotes its diffusion professional conferences, councils, and committees [8]. Organizational factors include the level of serve as important intermediaries enabling local government [15], employees’ knowledge and skills leaders or interest groups to exchange knowledge on [16], interorganizational attention networks [17], and policy and build competence in implementing such a leadership [18]. Finally, environmental factors policy [24]. For instance, McNeal et al. (2007) influencing the adoption of e-government include the propose
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Privacy Threshold Analysis for the Patent End to End (PE2E) System Template Version Number: 01-2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Privacy Threshold Analysis USPTO Patent End to End (PE2E) System Unique Project Identifier: PTOP-003-00 Introduction: This Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA) is a questionnaire to assist with determining if a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is necessary for this IT system. This PTA is primarily based from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) privacy guidance and the Department of Commerce (DOC) IT security/privacy policy. If questions arise or further guidance is needed in order to complete this PTA, please contact your Bureau Chief Privacy Officer (BCPO). Description of the information system and its purpose: Provide a general description (in a way that a non-technical person can understand) of the information system that addresses the following elements: The E-Government Act of 2002 defines “ information system” by reference to the definition section of Title 44 of the United States Code. The following is a summary of the definition: “ Information system” means a discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. See: 44. U.S.C. § 3502(8). Patents End-to-End (PE2E) is a Master system portfolio consisting of next generation Patents Automated Information Systems (AIS). The goal of PE2E is to make the interaction of USPTO’s users as simple and efficient as possible in order to accomplish user goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Function of the Patent Specification August 2014
    Structure and Function of the Patent Specification August 2014 Structure and Function of the Patent Specification The structure of a patent specification is described below, with some explanations of underlying patent law concepts that the specification is designed to address. At the end of this note is a section which guides applicants in checking a specification that we prepare on their behalf. General Purpose The purpose of the patent specification is to fulfil the patentee’s part in the contract that a patent constitutes. In return for a full disclosure of the invention, the patentee can have a time-limited monopoly for the invention. During that time, the patentee has the right to stop others working the invention without permission. The monopoly generally lasts for twenty years, although annual renewal fees are usually payable. After the patent expires, the invention enters the public domain and cannot be patented again. A patent is enforced if necessary against infringers by action brought before the court. A patent specification is a legal document. Third parties and the court must be able to understand it, so that the limits of the protection it affords can be determined precisely. Structure of the specification • A patent specification normally has the following parts in the order given: • A title to identify the invention. • A statement as to the field to which the invention relates. • An explanation of the background “state of the art” – what was already known prior to the invention. • A statement of an objective technical problem which the invention seeks to solve, or an objective the invention is aimed at achieving.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Litigation and USPTO Trials: Implications for Patent Examination Quality
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Department of Commerce Patent Litigation and USPTO Trials: Implications for Patent Examination Quality January 2015 PROJECT TEAM Office of Chief Economist Alan C. Marco Richard D. Miller Office of Patent Legal Administration Kathleen Kahler Fonda Pinchus M. Laufer Office of Patent Quality Assurance Paul Dzierzynski Martin Rater United States Patent and Trademark Office 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Page 1 of 80 Executive Summary Introduction In response to a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Report GAO-13-465, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has conducted a study regarding the relationship between certain patent- and patent examination-related characteristics and the likelihood of subsequent patent infringement litigation initiated by the patent holder or inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by a third party at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The goal was to gather information that could lead to enhanced patent quality. A review of the existing literature revealed that significant empirical work has been conducted relating the likelihood of litigation to various characteristics of the patents and parties involved. However, we have found few attempts to relate characteristics of the patent examination process to subsequent litigation. Also, because the IPR option is relatively new, no work has been done to find any systematic differences between patents that undergo IPR and those that do not. The purpose of this report is to begin to fill in some of these gaps in the existing literature, and to determine the extent to which such studies can inform improvements to patent quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2019 The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship Erika Lietzan University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 Akron Law Review 805 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/984 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Jan 20 13:42:00 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 21st ed. Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 AKRON L. REV. 805 (2019). ALWD 6th ed. Lietzan, E. ., The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship, 53(4) Akron L. Rev. 805 (2019). APA 7th ed. Lietzan, E. (2019). The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship. Akron Law Review, 53(4), 805-872. Chicago 7th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship," Akron Law Review 53, no. 4 (2019): 805-872 McGill Guide 9th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship" (2019) 53:4 Akron L Rev 805. AGLC 4th ed. Erika Lietzan, 'The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship' (2019) 53(4) Akron Law Review 805.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparation and Filing of a Provisional Patent Application I
    i Preparation and Filing of a Provisional Patent Application Introduction A provisional application is a means for inventors to easily, quickly and inexpensively obtain “patent pending” status and establish a priority date in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The provisional application has a one year term. Prior to the expiration of the provisional, a regular utility patent application must be filed which claims priority to the earlier filing date of the provisional. The provisional application is usually less expensive since all of the formal requirements that are needed for a regular utility patent application are not required. In addition, there is no requirement to include write “claims” for the invention. While the claims are important to ultimately define the scope of the invention, preparation of valid claims can be the most difficult section for the lay person to prepare. To the untrained eye, the claims sometimes appear to include highly technical jargon written in a foreign language. But the legal requirements of defining the metes and bounds of an invention require a high degree of precision which is not always easily expressed in plain language. Assuming that the same subject matter of the utility application is included in the provisional application, it is as if the utility application was filed as of the earlier provisional date. This is important since the first to file will typically be considered the first inventor. Note that the provisional priority date only applies for material included in the provisional application. Thus, details are important! During this one year period, the inventor can investigate the commercial feasibility of the invention to determine if the cost of a regular patent application is worth the expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventions and Patents
    MODULE 03 Inventions and Patents MODULE 03. Inventions and Patents OUTLINE LEARNING POINT 1: Basics of invention and patent 1. One way of adding value to a product 2. Reasons for patenting an invention LEARNING POINT 2: Patent application 1. Evaluating the patentability of an invention 2. Deciding whether to patent an invention 3. Preparing a patent application (1) Detailed description of the invention (2) Claims (3) Who prepares (4) After filing a patent application LEARNING POINT 3: Patent infringement 1. Definition of patent infringement 2. If you come across your competitor’s patent LEARNING POINT 4: Patent management system 1. Basic elements of a patent management system 2. Patent portfolio INTRODUCTION The term "intellectual property (IP)" is defined as the property resulting from creations of the human mind, the intellect. In this regard, it is fair that the person making efforts for an intellectual creation has some benefit as a result of this endeavor. Probably, the most important among intellectual properties is “patent.” A patent is an exclusive right granted by a government for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. The details on the way of acquiring patents will be provided for protecting precious intellectual properties. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. You understand how to decide whether your new technology or invention should be protected by one or more patents and, if so, how to do so. 2. You know how the grant of a patent over an invention or technology helps you to prevent or have an upper hand in legal disputes that may arise later on.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting: a Guidebook for Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World
    Foley Hoag eBook PATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World by Beth E. Arnold PATENTING: A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING IN A POST-AMERICA INVENTS ACT WORLD IN A POST-AMERICA A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING PATENTING: 1 Contents Preface ............................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 What Is a Patent? ..........................................................................................2 Chapter 2 What Is Potentially Patentable? ................................................................5 Chapter 3 What Is Not Patentable? .............................................................................7 Chapter 4 How Is a Patent Obtained? .......................................................................16 Chapter 5 What Should You Do Before Filing a Patent Application? ...............25 Chapter 6 What Shouldn’t You Do Before Filing a Patent Application? ...........28 Chapter 7 How Are Foreign Patents Obtained? .....................................................29 Chapter 8 Who Is an Inventor on a Patent? ............................................................33 Chapter 9 Who Owns the Patent? ..............................................................................35 Chapter 10 How Long Is a Patent in Effect? .............................................................39 About Foley Hoag ...............................................................................................42 About the Author: Beth E. Arnold .........................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing-A-Patent-Application.Pdf
    PREPARING A PATENT APPLICATION Patentability 1. The idea, concept or device must be novel. It cannot have been publicly known anywhere in the world prior to its invention by you. Public disclosure includes publication, display, presentation, offer for sale, commercial use or inclusion in a previous patent. 2. The invention must be kept confidential. In the United States a patent application can be filed one year from the date you publicly disclose, BUT in the rest of the world, the right to file is lost the day it is disclosed. Therefore, it is important to contact the Technology Transfer office before making any public disclosure. 3. The invention must not be obvious. An argument must be made that an average person who is skilled in the field would not have thought of the invention as an obvious extension or combination of existing knowledge. This is the most difficult test because the patent examiner can argue that IF a person knew about A, B and C they could have arrived at X. 4. Inventions which are NOT patentable include theories, plans of action, mental processes, laws of nature, mathematical expressions or algorithms, methods of doing business or naturally occurring substances (although their isolation or use may be patentable). General Considerations 1. A patent application is divided into two distinct parts. Disclosure or Specification -- The disclosure comprises the bulk of the patent application. It includes a discussion of all related literature, patents and publicly disclosed material. It contains a detailed explanation of the invention and how it differs from all prior public matter, and it describes the best mode of practicing the invention in enough detail that an average person skilled in the field could reproduce the invention.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 30Th ANNIVERSARY a Brief History of the Trilateral Cooperation
    THE 30th ANNIVERSARY A Brief History of the Trilateral Cooperation European Patent Office Japan Patent Office United States Patent and Erhardtstr. 27 3-4-3 Kasumigaseki, Trademark Office 80469 Munich Chiyoda-ku P.O. Box 1450 Germany Tokyo 100-8915 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.epo.org Japan USA www.jpo.go.jp [email protected] www.uspto.gov DW3_AX072_表紙_欧文.indd 1-2 2012/11/01 14:02:03 プロセスシアンプロセスマゼンタプロセスイエロープロセスブラック Trilateral Cooperation The framework of the Trilateral Cooperation was set up in 1983 between the European Patent Offi ce (EPO), the Japan Patent Offi ce (JPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Offi ce (USPTO). The Trilateral Offi ces process the greater part of all patent applications fi led worldwide, in- cluding PCT applications(i). In the early 1980s, as the Trilateral Offi ces, the world’s major IP of- fi ces, faced a rapid increase in the number of applications, we established a unique international cooperation framework in the patent fi eld. This is the “Trilateral Cooperation.” Filing activities of users of the patent systems have become more global in line with the recent pattern of economic globalization. The number of patent applications in the world has continu- ously increased, as patent applications for the same inventions are fi led with multiple patent of- fi ces. The Trilateral Offi ces are committed to eliminating unnecessary duplication of work among the Offi ces, enhancing patent examination effi ciency and quality, and aiming to grant stable patent rights smoothly. The Trilateral Offices continue to lead various projects in the patent field through the unique Trilateral Cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Patent Law: United States and Europe Compared
    SOFTWARE PATENT LAW: UNITED STATES AND EUROPE COMPARED Software is a global business. Patents are increasingly the protection of choice; as a consequence, international software patent laws are of growing importance to software vendors. This article focuses on European patent law and how it differs from United States law in regards to software technology. Statutes and relevant case law of both unions are discussed and compared, providing an introductory secondary source for scholars and practitioners. Introduction In the past, industrial countries had their own patent laws and offices. Those seeking protection in a specific country had to apply for a national patent and obey local laws. With increasing globalization, international agreements were made and organizations founded to reconcile regional differences: The 1883 Paris Convention1 was based on the principle of reciprocal national treatment and therefore dealt more with international comity than the unification of patent laws. The 1970 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)2 finally implemented international one-stop patents.3 Both treaties are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).4 1 The Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property was enacted on March 20, 1883. It has been amended most recently in 1970. http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo020en.htm. 2 The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was adopted on June 19, 1970 in Washington, D.C., and has been encoded in 35 U.S.C. §§ 351-76 (2000). 28 U.S.T. 7645. It has been modified most recently in October 2001. http://www.wipo.org/pct/en/index.html. 3 International one-stop patents—generally called PCTs after the enabling treaty—are patents that are recognized by all WIPO member countries (see n.4, infra).
    [Show full text]