IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v11y2014i1p37-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ill-Conceived, Even If Competently Administered: Software Patents, Litigation, and Innovation—A Comment on Graham and Vishnubhakat

Author

Listed:
  • Shawn P. Miller
  • Alexander Tabarrok

Abstract

The number of patents has increased dramatically in the past three decades, as has the number of patent-related lawsuits, particularly in the field of software. Industry and academic experts have expressed concern that many of the patents being issued are of low quality. Writing in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Stuart Graham and Saurabh Vishnubhakat have defended the United States Patent and Trademark Office, arguing that the PTO has acted responsibly in issuing patents that are legally valid and that it is handling problems constructively. We accept some of Graham and Vishnubhakat’s defense of the PTO, but argue that the most important issue is not whether the law is being competently administered but whether patent law, particularly as applied to software, is creating patents that are overly broad and ambiguous. We maintain that it is, and that the results are less innovation and more costly and unproductive litigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawn P. Miller & Alexander Tabarrok, 2014. "Ill-Conceived, Even If Competently Administered: Software Patents, Litigation, and Innovation—A Comment on Graham and Vishnubhakat," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 11(1), pages 37-45, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:11:y:2014:i:1:p:37-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/795/MillerTabarrokJan2014.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/902
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Alan C., 2004. "The Selection Effects (and Lack Thereof) in Patent Litigation: Evidence from Trials," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-47, September.
    2. Tabarrok Alexander, 2002. "Patent Theory versus Patent Law," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-26, October.
    3. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, June.
    4. Stuart Graham & Saurabh Vishnubhakat, 2013. "Of Smart Phone Wars and Software Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 67-86, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eli Dourado & Alex Tabarrok, 2015. "Public choice perspectives on intellectual property," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 129-151, April.
    2. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti & NIkolaus Thumm, 2017. "The Role of Patents in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). A survey of the Literature," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0212, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".

    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. Dimitrios Exadaktylos & Mahdi Ghodsi & Armando Rungi, 2021. "What do Firms Gain from Patenting? The Case of the Global ICT Industry," Papers 2108.00814, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    2. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    3. Douglas Hanley, 2015. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," 2015 Meeting Papers 1491, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Joseph Stiglitz, 2013. "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Development Process, with Some Lessons from Developed Countries: An Introduction," LEM Papers Series 2013/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Jiri Schwarz & Martin Stepanek, 2016. "Patents: A Means to Innovation or Strategic Ends?," Working Papers IES 2016/08, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2016.
    6. Exadaktylos, Dimitrios & Ghodsi, Mahdi & Rungi, Armando, 2024. "What do firms gain from patenting? The case of the global ICT industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    7. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    8. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    9. Raza, Werner G., 2021. "COVID-19 and the failure of pharmaceutical innovation for the global South: The example of "neglected diseases" and emerging infectious diseases," Briefing Papers 32a, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    10. repec:osf:socarx:qzmf8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    14. B. Zorina Khan, 2014. "Of Time and Space: Technological Spillovers among Patents and Unpatented Innovations during Early U.S. Industrialization," NBER Working Papers 20732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    16. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    17. Gideon Ndubuisi, 2024. "Patent Enforcement and Quality Upgrading of Exported Products," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 13979-14011, September.
    18. Marcus Berliant & Masahisa Fujita, 2008. "Knowledge Creation As A Square Dance On The Hilbert Cube," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1251-1295, November.
    19. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    20. Salzberger Eli M., 2011. "The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 435-480, December.
    21. Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Strategy for Cluster-Based Industrial Development in Developing Countries," Discussion Papers 2019, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property; patents; software patent; innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:ejw:journl:v:11:y:2014:i:1:p:37-45. 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: Jason Briggeman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.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.