Showing 1 - 8 of 8
The standard economic rationale for the alienability of property rights is that it facilitates the flow of resources to those who can put it to the most valuable use, or the “highest utility user.” But patents do not come with a right to productively use some social resource—patent rights...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012848024
Two arguments are commonly made against restricting patentable subject-matter. The first is that such restrictions are over-inclusive. If an invention is “new, useful, and non-obvious,” critics ask, why should it be denied patent incentives because it falls into some “wrong” category?...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014191616
The claims of a patent are its boundaries, defining the scope of exclusion. This boundary function of claims is undermined by the fact that claims can be changed throughout the life of the patent, thereby moving the patent boundary. A boundary that can be moved at-will is one that the public...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014223207
An enormous literature has criticized patent claims for being ambiguous. In this Article, I explain that this literature miscomprehends the real problem. The fundamental concern with patent claims is not ambiguity (which may, or may not, lead to overbroad rights) but the fact that claims are...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014166642
The concept of “invention” is fundamental to patent law. What the patentee creates as the invention, he receives as his monopoly reward. This quid pro quo suggests that patent scope is self-defining: the patentee receives whatever invention he created, and nothing else. The quid pro quo...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014206291
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10002690573
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001779182
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10002030709