DOCSLIB.ORG

(3)/101: Software As (Un)Patentable Subject Matter a Comparative Analysis of the Legal Standards for Software Patent Protection in Europe and the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(3)/101: Software As (Un)Patentable Subject Matter a Comparative Analysis of the Legal Standards for Software Patent Protection in Europe and the United States THESIS - RESEARCH MASTER INFORMATION LAW Error 52(2)(3)/101: Software as (Un)Patentable Subject Matter A comparative analysis of the legal standards for software patent protection in Europe and the United States. Abstract This thesis discusses the patentability of software in both Europe and the United States. The main question to be addressed is whether the exclusion of software from patent protection is still meaningful in light of its historical development and current application, and whether there is still room for improvement. After an analysis of the history and current legal standards under which software can be patented, this thesis turns to a comparison of both legal systems and finds that their overall historical development is surprisingly similar. This thesis will also show that, contrary to general belief, it is currently more difficult to obtain patent protection for software in the United States than in Europe. Ultimately, this thesis concludes that the exclusion of software from patent protection is outdated and leads to unnecessary complexities. In this regard, various problems related to software patents, such as the monopolization of building blocks, patent thickets and high litigation risks are discussed as well. In light of the aforementioned, the final part of this thesis discusses possible improvements to both patent systems in order to reduce “bad software patents” and to enhance legal certainty. AUTHOR: Alexander D. de Leeuw DATE: 3rd of December, 2014 STUDENT NR: 6039944 SUPERVISOR: Sven J.R. Bostyn TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….…………..………. 5 2. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ………………………………………………………….……… 8 2.1. Research Question …………………...………………..……………..……….………. 8 2.2. Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………………………. 9 2.3. What is Software? ………………...……………….…………………………….……. 10 2.3.1. Mathematical Methods ……………..…..…………..……………………… 11 2.3.2. Methods for Doing Business .……..…………………………….…….….… 12 2.3.3. Machine Software versus Business Method Software ………….………….. 13 2.4. Interim Conclusion …………………………………………………….………………14 3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES ……………….……. 15 3.1. Legal Framework in Europe ………………………………………………………….. 15 3.1.1. Statutory Exclusion of Software: Art.52 EPC ……..….…..….……….…… 15 3.1.2. Non-Patentable Subject Matter “As Such” …….....…………………….….. 17 3.1.3. Background of the “As Such” Provision ……......……………………..…... 18 3.2. Legal Framework in the United States …………………………………………...……21 3.2.1. United States Patent Act / 35 U.S.C. .….……………….……………..…… 22 3.2.2. History of 35 U.S.C. 101 …………….………….………….……………… 23 3.2.3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Broad Interpretation of § 101 …….………….… 25 3.2.4. Judicial Exclusion: Laws of Nature, Physical Phenomena and Abstract Ideas …………………………………………………………………..… 26 3.3. Interim Conclusion ………………………………………………………………...….. 29 4. DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT LEGAL STANDARD IN EUROPE …...………….… 32 4.1. Interpretation of Article 52 by the European Patent Office …………………..........…. 32 4.1.1. Technical Character ………………………………………………………... 32 4.1.2. Technical Contribution to the Prior Art …….…………..………….............. 33 4.1.3. Technical Effect ……………………………………………………..……... 35 4.1.4. Further Technical Effect ……………………………………………..…….. 36 4.1.5. Combination of Software and Hardware ………………….……..……….... 38 4.1.6. Contradictions & Other Relevant Considerations .. ………………………... 42 4.2. Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 3/08 …………………………………………………. 43 4.2.1. Difference v. Divergence …………………………………………………... 44 4.2.2. Assessment of Contribution Approach …. ………. ………………………... 45 4.2.3. Assessment of Combination Approach …. ……………………………….... 46 4.2.4. Assessment of Further Technical Effect Approach ………………………... 46 4.3. What is the Current Legal Standard? ……………………….…..…………................. 47 4.4. Business Method Software …………………………………………………………… 49 2 4.4.1. Business Method Software under the Combination Approach …………….. 49 4.4.2. Business Method Software under the Further Technical Effect Approach ……………………………………………………………. 50 4.5. Interim Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….…… 51 5. DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT LEGAL STANDARD IN THE UNITED STATES .... 52 5.1. Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 101 by U.S. Courts …………...............….………….... 52 5.1.1. Point of Novelty Approach ……………………………………………….... 53 5.1.2. Freeman-Walter-Abele Approach ………………………………………….. 55 5.1.3. Machine-or-Transformation Approach …………………………………….. 58 5.1.4. Useful, Concrete and Tangible Result Approach ………………………….. 60 5.1.5. Significant Additional Features Approach ……………………………….... 64 5.1.6. Most Recent Ruling: Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank ………………..……. 67 5.2. What is the Current Legal Standard? …………………………………………...…….. 70 5.3. Business Method Software …………………………………………………………… 71 5.3.1. Business Method Software under the Machine-or-Transformation Test ……………….……………………………………………………………….. 71 5.3.2. Business Method Software under the Significant Additional Features Approach ………………………………………………………………………..… 72 5.4. Interim Conclusion ……..………………………………………..………………...…..74 6. COMPARISON OF BOTH LEGAL SYSTEMS ..………….……….......………..……….…. 75 6.1. Comparison of Legal Standards ……………………………..........…………………... 75 6.1.1. The General Historical Development of Software Patentability ……...…… 75 6.1.2. The Specific Characteristics of Both Legal Systems ……………..………... 77 6.1.3. Comparison of the Current Legal Standards …………………………….….79 6.2. Is the EPC Exclusion Clause Eroded? ………………………………………………... 81 6.2.1. Original Intention Behind the Exclusion Clause – Travaux Préparatoires ……………………………………………………………………... 81 6.2.2. Original Intention Behind the Exclusion Clause – Case Law …………..…. 83 6.2.3. Has the Exclusion Clause Become Meaningless? ….…………….………... 84 6.3. Is § 101 of the U.S. Patent Eroded? …………...……………….....…….…………….. 85 6.3.1. Original Intention Behind § 101 – Case Law ……………………………… 85 6.3.2. Has the U.S. Invention Hurdle Become Meaningless? ..……….....……....... 87 6.4. Problems Faced in Both Legal Systems ……………………………………………….88 6.4.1. Overly Broad Patents ………...…………………………………..………… 88 6.4.2. Patent Thickets and Patent Trolls ……………………...…………………... 91 6.4.3. Defensive Patenting and Litigation Risks ……………………..…………… 92 6.4.4. Lack of Interference by Lawmakers ………..……………………………… 95 3 6.4.5. How to Formulate a Clear-Cut Legal Standard ……………………………. 96 6.5. Interim Conclusion ……..………………………………………………….…………..97 7. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO PATENT LAW ………………...……………………… 99 7.1. Further Limiting Patent Protection for Software …………..………..…………...…… 99 7.2. Abandon the Exclusion of Software …….......…………..……............................……. 101 7.3. Exclude Subject Matter Through Other Patentability Requirements ……………...…. 103 7.4. Combination of Improvements ……………………………………………………….. 106 7.5. Interim Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 109 8. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………...………. 111 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………...………. 115 10. APPENDIX I ………………………………………………………………………………….. 131 4 1. INTRODUCTION Smartphones, computers and other electronically operated devices play an increasingly important role in society, and represent an area of technology in which there is vast progress and an ever accelerating pace of innovation. Take smartphones for example: new models are presented on a yearly basis, there are high expectations of which and how many new features are included, and many people are keen on getting their hands on these latest models. The hardware in these devices is without a doubt patentable if it lives up to the three basic requirements of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. Patent law was originally created to protect such tangible inventions. For another, and increasingly large part, the innovation in such devices lies in the software, or a combination of software and hardware, that is used to operate them. The innovation is then found in an intangible, rather than tangible medium, which caused different legal systems to have problems in implementing these inventions into the their legal framework for patent protection.1 The first question that might arise is why protection is sought under patent law, as opposed to copyright law. It is fairly easy to get copyright protection. All that is required is a sufficiently original expression in order to obtain protection for as long as 70 years after the author’s death. This means that it is a low cost protection model with a long period of protection. However, the scope of protection under copyright law is often too narrow for software; it basically comes down to the protection of verbatim copies, and in some cases slight adaptations of the work. This is assumed to be one of the most important reasons for software developers to turn to patent law. The scope of protection provided by a patent is broad. A patent provides a very strong monopoly, which is hard to circumvent by competitors. In essence, it allows the applicant to obtain protection for the underlying idea, something that copyright explicitly does not. Additionally, software developers usually do not need a term of protection of 70+ years. Software is constantly changing and what is new at this moment is often outdated in one to five years. Thus, patent law seems better suited for the kind of protection that software developers seek. In light of the above, and however interesting it might be, it goes beyond the scope of this thesis to discuss copyright protection for software any further. 1 The term “invention” might be confusing in this regard: under the European Patent Convention, “software as such” is excluded from patentability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On
    OPINION The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On By Heather J. Meeker LinuxInsider 02/23/05 5:00 AM PT Once upon a time, we intellectual property lawyers got to live peacefully in our ivory towers. Now it seems that intellectual property policy issues have become fraught with partisan rhetoric. Most open-source promoters are against software patents. Most corporate spokesmen side with patents, period, whether they cover software or not. But it is worth looking beyond the rhetoric. The European Commission recently tolled the death knell for the EU Software Patent Directive, or more precisely, the "Directive on the Patentability of Computer- Implemented Inventions." Like most Americans, I am fairly clueless about the EU political process, and I wouldn't presume to write about exactly how it was killed. But the decision may have been swayed by an eleventh-hour public relations pitch against the directive by open-source spokesmen from the United States. On that aspect, I will add my two cents. A delegation of open-source leaders, led by Linus Torvalds, published an "Appeal" at softwarepatents.com, calling software patents "dangerous to the economy at large, and particularly to the European economy." Look Beyond the Rhetoric Leaders of the open-source software movement have long been harsh critics of software patents. The GPL [license] itself says, "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents." The appeal contends that copyright provides adequate protection for the creations of software authors. The Appeal advocated reliance on copyright law, rather than patent law, for the protection of software. Not long afterward, in late January, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee recommended scrapping the pending directive, extending the debate until at least the end From www.linuxinsider.com/story/40676.html 1 April 2011 of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts
    How to sustain technology and make it profitable while avoiding IP conflicts Harvard Biotechnology Journal Club meeting, Feb 22nd 2017 Julian Daich, fellow at the Wound Healing and Tissue Engineering Lab, BWH, supervised by Dennis Orgill Patents First established in Venice in 1450, patents are a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention Source: Wikipedia A patent – grants a monopoly over a technological niche – does not guarantee freedom to operate – standard formal structure ● State of the art ● Full description of the invention with examples ● Claims- sentences that define the scope to be enforced a patent application has to show novelty and non obviousness – Empowerment. Patents are a legal basis for priority access to a technological niche – Freedom. Patents are a legal stamp that guarantees protection from other patents Defensive vs offensive ● Big corps dealing with ● Big corps pursuing to many technologies and monopolize a niche parties ● Newcomers attempting ● Newcomers attempting to capture a niche to access to an existing ● Non practitioners niche ● Patent trolls ● Technological standards and frameworks ● Can either accelerate or stop innovation ● Do not harm innovation Patent SWOT ● Strengths ● Weakness – Empower to develop – Discourage making new technology developments or – Encourage to share improvements to already knowledge patented technology ● Opportunities ● Threats – Create new technological – Ambigous patents can niches and markets be used to block technology development or to obtain economical benefits at expenses of authentic innovation Patentleft ● Person A has a patent, and licenses it under a patentleft license.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Symposium for John Perry Barlow
    DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Volume 18, Special Symposium Issue August 2019 Special Editor: James Boyle THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow Duke University School of Law Duke Law and Technology Review Fall 2019–Spring 2020 Editor-in-Chief YOOJEONG JAYE HAN Managing Editor ROBERT HARTSMITH Chief Executive Editors MICHELLE JACKSON ELENA ‘ELLIE’ SCIALABBA Senior Research Editors JENNA MAZZELLA DALTON POWELL Special Projects Editor JOSEPH CAPUTO Technical Editor JEROME HUGHES Content Editors JOHN BALLETTA ROSHAN PATEL JACOB TAKA WALL ANN DU JASON WASSERMAN Staff Editors ARKADIY ‘DAVID’ ALOYTS ANDREW LINDSAY MOHAMED SATTI JONATHAN B. BASS LINDSAY MARTIN ANTHONY SEVERIN KEVIN CERGOL CHARLES MATULA LUCA TOMASI MICHAEL CHEN DANIEL MUNOZ EMILY TRIBULSKI YUNA CHOI TREVOR NICHOLS CHARLIE TRUSLOW TIM DILL ANDRES PACIUC JOHN W. TURANCHIK PERRY FELDMAN GERARDO PARRAGA MADELEINE WAMSLEY DENISE GO NEHAL PATEL SIQI WANG ZACHARY GRIFFIN MARQUIS J. PULLEN TITUS R. WILLIS CHARLES ‘CHASE’ HAMILTON ANDREA RODRIGUEZ BOUTROS ZIXUAN XIAO DAVID KIM ZAYNAB SALEM CARRIE YANG MAX KING SHAREEF M. SALFITY TOM YU SAMUEL LEWIS TIANYE ZHANG Journals Advisor Faculty Advisor Journals Coordinator JENNIFER BEHRENS JAMES BOYLE KRISTI KUMPOST TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors’ Biographies ................................................................................ i. John Perry Barlow Photograph ............................................................... vi. The Past and Future of the Internet: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow James Boyle
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis Innovation Dynamics in Open Source Software
    Master thesis Innovation dynamics in open source software Author: Name: Remco Bloemen Student number: 0109150 Email: [email protected] Telephone: +316 11 88 66 71 Supervisors and advisors: Name: prof. dr. Stefan Kuhlmann Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3353 Office: Ravelijn RA 4410 (STEPS) Name: dr. Chintan Amrit Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 4064 Office: Ravelijn RA 3410 (IEBIS) Name: dr. Gonzalo Ord´o~nez{Matamoros Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3348 Office: Ravelijn RA 4333 (STEPS) 1 Abstract Open source software development is a major driver of software innovation, yet it has thus far received little attention from innovation research. One of the reasons is that conventional methods such as survey based studies or patent co-citation analysis do not work in the open source communities. In this thesis it will be shown that open source development is very accessible to study, due to its open nature, but it requires special tools. In particular, this thesis introduces the method of dependency graph analysis to study open source software devel- opment on the grandest scale. A proof of concept application of this method is done and has delivered many significant and interesting results. Contents 1 Open source software 6 1.1 The open source licenses . 8 1.2 Commercial involvement in open source . 9 1.3 Opens source development . 10 1.4 The intellectual property debates . 12 1.4.1 The software patent debate . 13 1.4.2 The open source blind spot . 15 1.5 Litterature search on network analysis in software development .
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs
    Ekonomi och samhälle Economics and Society Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr 246 Rosa Maria Ballardini Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Helsinki 2012 < Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs: Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Key words: computer programs, software, intellectual property law, patents, copyright, open source software © Hanken School of Economics & Rosa Maria Ballardini, 2012 Rosa Maria Ballardini Hanken School of Economics Department of Accounting and Commercial Law P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland ONM VIR EN Hanken School of Economics N TA E L IC L A D B R E O ISBN 978-952-232-173-2 (printed ) L N ISBN 978-952-232-174-9 (PDF) ISSN-L 0424-7256 ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) 441 002 ISSN 2242-699X (PDF) Printed matter Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2012 i PREFACE While growing up in a small, remote village in the Italian Alps, I could not help but dream about exotic destinations and faraway lands. Back then I never imagined myself embarking on a journey that would eventually materialize into a PhD project at a Finnish University. However, the greatest travels are often those without clear destinations or meticulous planning, and as it turns out this has been one of my best voyages. On this journey, I’ve drifted and sailed. Thankfully, I’ve benefited from the guidance and support of many. First and foremost, the vast academic experience and accommodating personalities of my supervisors have been crucial for developing both the research and the independent thinking skills necessary for any doctoral project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Software Patent Debate Andre´S Guadamuz Gonza´Lez*
    Jnl. Intellectual Property Law and Practice Advance Access published January 10, 2006 _____________________ | | | | Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice ARTICLE | 1of11 | The software patent debate Andre´s Guadamuz Gonza´lez* It was never the object of patent laws to grant a mono- poly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade Key issues of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary The recent demise of the proposed Directive on progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate cre- Computer-Implemented Inventions has over- ation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct shadowed its complex background and the than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculat- interplay of conflicting interests that it brought ive schemers who make it their business to watch the into play. advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam Copyright (which already protects all software) in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them and patent law (which protects much software to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of in the United States but relatively little else- the arts. where) both have their strengths and weak- US Supreme Court, Atlantic Works v Brady, 1882 nesses as legal rights. Little evidence has, however, been adduced as to the incentive effect of either of these legal regimes. 1. Introduction The decision to withdraw the proposed Direc- The approval procedure of the proposed Directive tive does not mean that the issues addressed on the Patentability of Computer-implemented in it and the interests affected by it have been Inventions1 (the CII Directive) has sparked a heated resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Day After the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: Who Won the Battle and When Shall the War End? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos *
    Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2007 The day after the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: who won the battle and when shall the war end? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos * Abstract This article follows the debate about the patentability of software after the demise of the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, particularly exploring the misconception that software is not patentable in Europe, and the belief that this places the local software industry at a competitive disadvantage and that it is a less attractive place for investment compared to the US and Japan. The article assesses whether there is indeed a need for a change in law or in practice and if so, to ascertain the path that Europe should follow. DOI: 10.2966/scrip.040207.180 © Konstantinos Fotinopoulos 2007. This work is licensed through SCRIPT-ed Open Licence (SOL) . * Ilias Fotinopoulos & Associates Law Office, Athens, Greece, [email protected] SCRIPT-ed (2007) 4:2 181 “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” 1 Bill Gates “There is evidence, in the shape of the mass of US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. But not otherwise.” Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1371. 1. Introduction The demise of the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions 2 in July 2005 3 signaled the end of one of the most intense lobbying and activist battles in recent years in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software
    Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software OUCS, 12 January 2009 What we will cover: ● Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks ● Software Patents and FOSS ● Sustainability and Business Models ● Some Project Examples ● Conclusion Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (1) ● Many within the FOSS community reject the idea that a FOSS licence is a contract ● This is mainly for practical reasons, as contract law varies widely between countries, and is relatively expensive to litigate. ● In comparison IP law and specifically copyright law is more uniform, being the subject of numerous international treaties ● They argue that there is thus no need for explicit acceptance – the licensor either abides by the conditions of the licence or has no licence ● Thus enforcement of licence conditions is traditionally undertaken by asserting copyright infringement (no licence) rather than contractual breach Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (2) ● Exclusions of warranty and limitations of liability in all current FOSS licences are drafted to be effective under US law. Note: The GNU GPL v3 allows the inclusion of additional, regionalised exclusions and limitations. ● Occasionally the legal basis for the enforceability of FOSS licences is challenged, for example Wallace v. FSF, where it was argued that the GPL was a form of price-fixing and Jacobsen v. Katzer, where it was argued that a FOSS licensor must rely on contract law to enforce their conditions (both failed) ● Many FOSS licences do not specify a jurisdiction in which disputes should be resolved (and some specify inappropriate jurisdictions) Software Patents and FOSS ● Traditionally staff charged with exploiting software IP generated in UK Higher Education have considered the obtaining of software patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps
    UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING 3D DIGITAL DESIGNS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Stephanie Michelle Santoso December 2019 © 2019 Stephanie Michelle Santoso UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING DIGITAL DESIGNS AMONG 3D PRINTING USERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND Stephanie Michelle Santoso, Ph. D. Cornell University 2019 This doctoral research identifies and examines the challenges that 3D printing users face in creating and sharing digital design files, hardware and documentation related to intellectual property and other critical issues. In particular, this thesis describes the processes that 3D printing users undertake in leveraging Creative Commons (CC) and other approaches to securing IP rights. To investigate these questions, I employ a theoretical lens informed by the social construction of technology, free innovation and recursive publics. Through a combination of 20 open-ended interviews with members of the 3D printing community, the development of three in-depth case studies and additional secondary data analyses, I find that fewer members of the community use Creative Commons than originally expected and that there are persistent gaps in the understanding of how Creative Commons can be useful for the sharing of digital design files, hardware and documentation. While the original goals of this research focused more specifically on the IP issues facing 3D printing users, the overall findings of these activities provide broader insights around how users of a particular technology, in this case 3D printing, engage in different kinds of practices around sharing what they have created and the ways that these behaviors create an active community committed to perpetuating the creation of new knowledge, solutions and objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Mason Template 1: Title Slide
    Economic Rationales for Patents in the Current Context Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D. Professor & Workman Research Scholar University of Illinois Outline • Ex Ante (Traditional) Patent Rationales • Ex Post Patent Rationales – Coordination Value – Signaling – Monetization Value • Private Ordering – Standards – Patent Pools – Non-Traditional Licensing – Patent Pledges Traditional Ex Ante Justifications • Incentive to create • Incentive to invest in R&D • Incentive to finance Ex Ante Rationales-Still Relevant? • Other motivations to invent – First mover advantage – Trade secret protection – Reputational gains/Professional recognition • Patents are an important mechanism to protect technological innovation, even if one of many. Heterogeneous mix needed. • Other reasons to patent – Ex post rationales – Defensive patenting Ex Post Rationales for Patenting • Patents give rights holders control & ability to engage in numerous activities with confidence that their interest is protected • Prospect Theory: Patent rights motivate the holder to continue to invest (commercialize, improve) in the invention • Tragedy of the Commons: Technological innovation is likely to be used inefficiently unless one rights holder has an individual stake in the efficient use of the technology Ex Post Rationale: Coordination in the Value Chain • Patents allow inventors to specialize and collaborate – E.g., University research & TTOs • Especially important in growing number of fields dominated by cumulative technology – E.g., Cell phone components • Modularity is efficient
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives
    Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives By Gabriel Ben-Dor Edited by Jason Hu, Bryce Bajar, and Julia Borden Stanford-Brown iGEM 2012 1. Introduction It has been estimated that approximately 20 percent of the human genome is patented.1 While this is a generalized statement, most would find this notion, at least in part, unsettling. On the black and white ends of the spectrum, there are those who deeply resent “Microbesofts” and others who see these patents as the key to innovation. As synthetic biology is a relatively new field with unprecedented possibilities, indubitably, there is a great debate surrounding gene patenting in moral, practical, and legal domains. It is questioned whether the idea of patenting an element of life is immoral: owning or treating genetic material as property is a concern, though some argue this can remedied by having a clearer understanding of what a patent really is. Beyond that philosophical debate is the fear that allowing patents of genetic material could lead to monopolies exhibiting amoral (possibly even unethical) behavior in healthcare and other industries. On the legal end, genetic patents are currently on the hot seat in the courtrooms with some patents being upheld, others not. Many academics feel that the legal patent requirements of “utility,” “non-obviousness” and “sufficiently isolated or transformed” are not being appropriately met and that there should be a higher standard for patent acceptance. From a practical perspective, in general, research (the front end) seems to benefit more from open- source systems and idea sharing, while product development (the back end) benefits from patents.
    [Show full text]