Comments on: John Duffy on Business Method Patents http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/06/john-duffy-on-business-method-patents.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/06/john-duffy-on-business-method-patents.html/comment-page-1#comment-64268 Frank Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:01:13 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=17610#comment-64268 AJ, those are interesting insights, and there are many legal scholars now addressing them. A conference at Fordham called "Worlds Colliding" featured the work of many of them, including Mike Madison, Brett Frischmann, and Kathy Strandburg. I agree, IP protection must be carefully calibrated to the real need for innovation in a particular industry. The Sprigman/Raustiala vs. Hemphill/Suk debate on the fashion industry in the Stanford L. Rev. is an indication of the direction of scholarship in the field--as predicted in Michael Carroll's work on "uniformity costs" of IP. AJ, those are interesting insights, and there are many legal scholars now addressing them. A conference at Fordham called “Worlds Colliding” featured the work of many of them, including Mike Madison, Brett Frischmann, and Kathy Strandburg.

I agree, IP protection must be carefully calibrated to the real need for innovation in a particular industry. The Sprigman/Raustiala vs. Hemphill/Suk debate on the fashion industry in the Stanford L. Rev. is an indication of the direction of scholarship in the field–as predicted in Michael Carroll’s work on “uniformity costs” of IP.

]]> By: A.J. Sutter http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/06/john-duffy-on-business-method-patents.html/comment-page-1#comment-64252 A.J. Sutter Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:24:07 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=17610#comment-64252 I think one contestable point is about how necessary IP protection is for "innovation". When innovation is measured in terms of patent applications, this is rather circular. Most derivatives contracts, as well as the classical 1980s M&A techniques, did not depend on "expansive" IP protection. Indeed, the bread and butter of practicing lawyers isn't proprietary IP but know-how (in the US, not EU, sense of that term), since the sources of law are accessible to all; yet there are plenty of innovative lawyers. Moreover, technological innovation occurs in all cultures, whether IP is available or not. A nice book speaking to that point is John Powell's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Fitter-John-Powell/dp/1853393169/" rel="nofollow"><i>The Survival of the Fitter</i></a>. I think one contestable point is about how necessary IP protection is for “innovation”. When innovation is measured in terms of patent applications, this is rather circular. Most derivatives contracts, as well as the classical 1980s M&A techniques, did not depend on “expansive” IP protection. Indeed, the bread and butter of practicing lawyers isn’t proprietary IP but know-how (in the US, not EU, sense of that term), since the sources of law are accessible to all; yet there are plenty of innovative lawyers. Moreover, technological innovation occurs in all cultures, whether IP is available or not. A nice book speaking to that point is John Powell’s The Survival of the Fitter.

]]>