IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/acb/agenda/v20y2013i2p21-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fabricating Invention: The Patent Malfunction of Australian Patent Law

Author

Listed:
  • Hazel V. J. Moir

Abstract

Despite advice to parliament that patents are granted only for 'a significant advance over what was known and what was available to the public'2 the evidence shows this is not the standard used. The actual standard is a scintilla - a marginal difference from what is known. The consequence of such a low standard is that thousands of patents are granted for things that contribute no public benefit. Such trivial patents can impede genuinely inventive companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hazel V. J. Moir, 2013. "Fabricating Invention: The Patent Malfunction of Australian Patent Law," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 20(2), pages 21-38.
    • Handle: RePEc:acb:agenda:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:21-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p269601/pdf/fabricating.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    2. Hemphill, C. Scott & Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 327-339.
    3. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264.
    4. Wesley M. Cohen, 2005. "Patents and Appropriation: Concerns and Evidence-super-1," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 57-71, January.
    5. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    6. Shiro Armstrong, 2012. "Australian Trade Policy Strategy Contradictions," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1633-1644, December.
    7. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651.
    8. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neil Gandal & Michal Shur-Ofry & Michael Crystal & Royee Shilony, 2021. "Out of sight: patents that have never been cited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2903-2929, April.
    2. Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama & Byeongwoo Kang & Masatsura Igami, 2021. "Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6891-6915, August.
    3. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    4. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    5. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    6. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Minhao Xiang & Dian Fu & Kun Lv, 2023. "Identifying and Predicting Trends of Disruptive Technologies: An Empirical Study Based on Text Mining and Time Series Forecasting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Antecedents To Radical Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Firms In The Information Technology Industry By Aggregation Of Patents," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-31, October.
    9. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    10. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & Higham, Kyle, 2019. "Decentralising the Patent System," SocArXiv qzmf8, Center for Open Science.
    11. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    12. Ron Boschma & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Dieter Franz Kogler, 2015. "Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 223-250.
    13. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    14. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    15. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    16. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Gabrovski, Miroslav, 2015. "The Patent System as a Tool for Eroding Market Power," MPRA Paper 81330, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Sep 2017.
    19. Granato, Giulia & Fischer, Arnout R.H. & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2022. "“Misalignments between users and designers as source of inspiration: A novel hybrid method for physical new product development”," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Mary J. Benner, 2010. "Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 42-62, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:acb:agenda:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:21-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feanuau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.