Law Commons^™

Patents As Signals Of Quality In Crowdfunding, Christopher A. Cotropia

Law Faculty Publications

Patents and crowdfunding both attempt to foster early stage innova-tions. In theory, patents signal quality and value to attract investment and buyers and ultimately facilitate commercialization. Crowdfunding allows multiple individuals to make small contributions to finance start-up ven-tures. This Article reports on two related studies investigating the interac-tion between these two innovation tools by determining the impact of a crowdfunding campaign’s patent status on the campaign’s success and de-livery. The first study examines 9,184 Kickstarter campaigns in patent-eli-gible categories to determine whether patented or patent-pending labeled projects are more likely to reach their funding goal and in turn achieve actual, …

The Problem With Ptab's Power Over Section 101, Kristen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

The doctrine of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a “real mess.” Other apt terms to describe this doctrine, and the jurisprudence surrounding it, include “chaos” and “crisis.” Few question whether patent eligible subject matter is a problem; however, many do not realize how high the stakes are and how dire the consequences. The erosion of patent protection, in part due to the “chaos,” impacts the willingness of companies to invest in innovation. This is especially true in today’s most important technologies where innovations occur in the spaces most likely to be flagged as ineligible subject …

Ignorance Over Innovation: Why Misunderstanding Standard Setting Organizations Will Hinder Technological Progress, Kristen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

On January 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Qualcomm Inc. in federal district court, alleging antitrust violations in the company's licensing of semiconductor chips used in cell phones and more. The suit alleges, in part, that Qualcomm refuses to license its patents that cover innovations incorporated in technology standards (standard-essential patents, or SEPs), in contradiction of the company's promise to license this intellectual property on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. According to the FTC, Qualcomm's behavior reduces competitors' ability to participate in the market, raises prices paid by consumers for products incorporating the standardized technology, and at …

Fair Use And The Faces Of Transformation, Part I, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

The recent Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation case has been the focus of three recent posts in this Intellectual Property Issues series – from me, Doug Lichtman, and Rod Smolla. In Kienitz, the defendant changed a photograph of the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, into a stylized, high-contrast image, printed on t-shirts that mocked the mayor’s policies. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the new image constituted a fair use and therefore did not infringe the photograph’s copyright. (The original photo and the stylized version on the t-shirt can be seen here.) …

The Upside Of Intellectual Property's Downside, Christopher A. Cotropia, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

Intellectual property law exists because exclusive private rights provide an incentive to innovate. This is the traditional upside of intellectual property: the production of valuable information goods that society would otherwise never see. In turn, too much intellectual property protection is typically viewed as counterproductive, as too much control in the hands of private rightsholders creates more artificial scarcity and imposes more costs on future innovators than the incentive effect warrants. This is the traditional downside of intellectual property: reduced production and impeded innovation. This Article turns the traditional discussion on its head and shows that intellectual property’s putative costs …

Using Ip To Suppress Innovation (On Purpose), James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

In this “IP Viewpoints” post, I hope to combine two Uncontroversial Premises to reach a Counterintuitive Conclusion about the role that intellectual property can play in the regulation of innovation.

First Uncontroversial Premise: IP is a useful tool for creating incentives to innovate, but too much IP protection is counterproductive.

Giving innovators exclusive control over certain uses of their innovations allows them to commercialize their inventiveness and creativity, and thus helps ensure a return of the resources they invest in their craft. But IP protection also brings with it certain costs – and when IP rights reach a certain level …