It is now widely recognized that smaller firms make contributions to innovation that are quite disproportionate to their financial resources. They could do even more if the intellectual property system, which was originally designed to protect individual creativity, had not been captured in the interest of large firms. This paper explains why and how this happened, and discusses a series of remedies to make the use of patents attractive again to smaller firms and individual inventors, without damaging their value to large firms.
BochnovicJohn (1982), The Inventive Step, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, Basel.
2.
BoujuAndré (1988), Patent Infringement Litigation Costs, Longman for the Commission of the European Communities, London.
3.
CalvertI.A.SofocleousM. (1989), ‘Interference Statistics for Fiscal Years 1986 to 1998’, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Vol 71, pp 399–410.
4.
Calvert and Sofocleous (1992), ‘Interference Statistics for Fiscal Years 1989 to 1991’, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Vol 74, pp 822–826.
5.
Calvert and Sofocleous (1995), ‘Interference Statistics for Fiscal Years 1992 to 1994’, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Vol 77, pp 417–422.
6.
Eposcript 3 (1994), The European Patent Office, Munich.
7.
ETAN Report (1999), Strategic Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in the Context of Science and Technology Policy, EUR 18914, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
8.
JanisMark D. (1999), ‘Second tier patent protection’, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol 40, pp 151–219.
9.
KingstonWilliam, ed (1987), Direct Protection of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston.
10.
KingstonWilliam (1995), ‘Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes’, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol 2, No 1, pp 85–92.
11.
KingstonWilliam (2000a), ‘Antibiotics, invention and innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 6, pp 679–710.
LevinRichard C.KlevorickAlvin K.NelsonRichard R.WinterSidney G. (1987), ‘Yale study of R&D appropriability methods’, Brookings Economic Papers, Washington, DC.
14.
SchererF.M.HarhoffDietmar (2000), ‘Technology policy in a world of skew-distributed outcomes’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 4/5, pp 559–566.
15.
US Government Printing Office (1992), Advisory Committee on Patent Law Reform, a Report to the Secretary of Commerce, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
16.
US Government Printing Office (1997), The State of Small Business: A Report of the President, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
