FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125343516> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125343516 startingPage "1909" @default.
• W3125343516 abstract "IntroductionCurrent U.S. patent law is based on a fundamental misconception regarding the effects of U.S. patents on U.S. competitiveness. The conventional view is that U.S. patents help firms in the United States to compete against foreign rivals because U.S. patents provide U.S. inventors with exclusive rights that promote the discovery of socially beneficial inventions. Nevertheless, conventionalists recognize that exclusive patent rights also inhibit competition regarding new inventions, and that competition provides many benefits for society. As a result, U.S. policymakers typically have tried to balance the incentive effect of U.S. patents against the competitive costs.1 When considering U.S. competitiveness in global markets, however, conventionalists have failed to understand the impact of territoriality on U.S. patent law and U.S. competitiveness. This Article strives to correct these errors.Certainly, U.S. patent law is closely related to competition in global markets. By providing inventors with exclusive rights to their discoveries, U.S. patents encourage innovation,2 and companies in the United States frequently outcompete their international rivals by developing better products or cheaper manufacturing processes.3 Focusing on the incentive effect of U.S. patents, U.S. lawmakers have long argued that strong U.S. patents increase U.S. competitiveness.4 Many commentators agree, asserting for instance that [o]ne of the historical strengths of the U.S. science, engineering and technology enterprise has been the vigorous protection of [intellectual property] rights.5 Indeed, some lawmakers apparently believe that U.S. patents predominately issue to U.S. inventors and that improvements to the U.S. patent system will therefore inure to the benefit of U.S. innovators, not foreign firms.6 Bolstered by these arguments, patent rights have grown more robust in the United States than in almost any other country.7Nevertheless, the incentive effect of U.S. patent law often provides U.S. innovators with little advantage over foreign rivals because inventors worldwide can obtain U.S. patents.8 Indeed, because only U.S. ents can asserted in the United States and because the U.S. economy is the largest market in the world, foreign inventors are obtaining U.S. patents in record numbers.9 In recent years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (U.S. Patent Office) has issued more U.S. patents to foreign inventors than to U.S. inventors.10In contrast to the similar incentive effects of U.S. patents on U.S. and foreign firms, the harms to competition stemming from U.S. patents fall disproportionately on firms in the United States. U.S. patents have little effect on competition in foreign markets due to limits on the extraterritorial effect of U.S. law.11 Some traditional patent policymakers have recognized that U.S. patents therefore can limit the logical tools to firms within the United States while leaving foreign rivals relatively unconstrained. As a result, U.S. lawmakers have sought to convince other countries to strengthen their patent laws to match U.S. patent law.12 Although many countries have refused, the United States has nevertheless maintained high levels of patent tion, because the benefits still outweigh the costs.13 U.S. patent policymakers have also ignored an additional cost inherent to U.S. patent protection: U.S. patents weaken rivalry among competitors in the United States-and domestic rivalry substantially impacts competitive advantage.14 For example, intense domestic rivalry drives firms to improve and to reduce internal inefficiencies.15 Domestic rivalry also courages the of advanced factors of production, like technological information, and helps to spawn important supporting industries, like suppliers and manufacturers of related products.16Having failed to consider all of the costs of strong patent protection, U.S. lawmakers have embraced patent laws that actually undermine U. …" @default.
• W3125343516 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125343516 creator A5018536522 @default.
• W3125343516 date "2013-11-01" @default.
• W3125343516 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3125343516 title "The Competitive Advantage of Weak Patents" @default.
• W3125343516 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W3125343516 type Work @default.
• W3125343516 sameAs 3125343516 @default.
• W3125343516 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3125343516 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125343516 hasAuthorship W3125343516A5018536522 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C115910719 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C155202549 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C2984145337 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C40700 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C58546491 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConcept C91306197 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C115910719 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C144133560 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C155202549 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C162324750 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C162853370 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C17744445 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C18903297 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C190253527 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C199539241 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C29122968 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C2984145337 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C34447519 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C34974158 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C40700 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C58546491 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C86803240 @default.
• W3125343516 hasConceptScore W3125343516C91306197 @default.
• W3125343516 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W3125343516 hasLocation W31253435161 @default.
• W3125343516 hasOpenAccess W3125343516 @default.
• W3125343516 hasPrimaryLocation W31253435161 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W1528294999 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W1578606662 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2140354862 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2181337850 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W224083923 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2337859312 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2500977545 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2505217297 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W260969589 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2894150045 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3084005214 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3121937109 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3122664505 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3125785733 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3159362771 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W3166412570 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W4238593700 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W189458831 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2133305892 @default.
• W3125343516 hasRelatedWork W2753487410 @default.
• W3125343516 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W3125343516 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125343516 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125343516 magId "3125343516" @default.
• W3125343516 workType "article" @default.