Review of value and lean in complex product development

Approaches are being developed to improve complex product development from the perspective of value generation. However, the ideas and their relationships are still not fully articulated. We provide a structured literature review, with a primary but not exclusive focus on value ideas relating to lean in complex system product development. A framework organizes the concepts, methods, and their relationships. It clarifies the value delivery mechanism and could help to understand and thus improve value systems. Areas deserving further research attention are identified.We wish to thank the reviewers and editor for their valuable feedback, which helped to substantially improve early ver-sions of this articleThis is the accepted manuscript for a paper published in Systems Engineering Volume 18, Issue 2, pages 192–207, March 2015, DOI: 10.1002/sys.2129

Patent Invalidity versus Noninfringement

Most patent scholars agree that the Patent and Trademark Office grants too many invalid patents and that these patents impose a significant tax upon industry and technological innovation. Although policymakers and scholars have proposed various ways to address this problem, including better ex ante review by patent examiners and various forms of ex post administrative review, district courts invalidating patents in litigation remain a core defense against bad patents. This article analyzes a previously unidentified impediment to the use of district courts to invalidate patents. Nearly every patent lawsuit rises or falls on one of two defenses: invalidity or noninfringement. Invalidity and noninfringement are distinct legal and factual issues that are usually analyzed separately by scholars. Yet as the article explains, the two issues are closely related, creating a series of tradeoffs and asymmetries that lead many patent defendants to focus on noninfringement instead of invalidity. The net effect of these tradeoffs and asymmetries is that patent defendants often have an incentive to argue noninfringement instead of invalidity, leading courts to invalidate fewer patents than they should. This exacerbates the problem of invalid patents, making it harder for individuals and companies to create new products and services. The article concludes by proposing three reforms to help restore the balance between invalidity and noninfringement. First, eliminating the elevated burden of proof for invalidity would remove one significant asymmetry that makes it harder to prevail on invalidity. Second, a bifurcation rule giving defendants the option to defer infringement issues until after validity has been decided would help litigants develop coherent trial narratives while allowing them to focus on validity issues early in a case. And third, a new cause of action for an accounting, brought against industry competitors by a litigant that successfully invalidates a patent, would help eliminate the collective-action problem posed by invalidity’s public-good nature

Patently Impossible

The quest to achieve the impossible fuels creativity, spawns new fields of inquiry, illuminates old ones, and extends the frontiers of knowledge. It is difficult, however, to obtain a patent for an invention which seems impossible, incredible, or conflicts with well-established scientific principles. The principal patentability hurdle is operability, which an inventor cannot overcome if there is reason to doubt that the invention can really achieve the intended result. Despite its laudable gatekeeping role, this Article identifies two problems with the law of operability. First, though objective in theory, the operability analysis rests on subjective credibility assessments. These credibility assessments can introduce a bias toward unpatentability, with inventions emerging from new, poorly understood, and paradigm-shifting technologies as well as those from fields with a poor track record of success as the most vulnerable. Second, what happens when the impossible becomes possible? History reveals that the Patent Office and the courts will continue to deny patents for a long time thereafter. This Article argues that the mishandling of seemingly impossible inventions vitiates the presumption of patentability, prevents the patent system from sitting at the cutting edge of technology, and frustrates the patent system’s overarching goal to promote scientific and technological progress. In an effort to resolve these problems and fill a gap in patent scholarship, this Article offers a new framework for gauging the patentability of seemingly impossible inventions. Briefly, it contends that a more robust enforcement of patent law’s enablement requirement can and should perform the gatekeeping role because it can resolve whether an invention works by weighing objective, technical factors. This approach would quickly reveal technical merit for inventions that really work or, alternatively, the fatal flaw for inventions that are truly impossible. Its implementation would not only eliminate the need for the operability requirement, but it would also streamline patent examination, improve the disclosure function of the patent system, promote scientific and technological progress, and ultimately foster innovation

Collective realism: exploring the development and outcomes of urban housing collectives

The undersupply of housing in England has created a pervasive sense of crisis about the delivery of sufficient new dwellings. Alternative forms of housing provision therefore merit further exploration, particularly those that can deliver low cost, stable accommodation in good condition. Potential remedies may be found in various models for collective ownership of housing. Housing collectives are organisations controlled by their members and residents, operating in a defined geography, which collectively own and manage land and housing for the benefit of a designated group. But why have such organisations consistently been a marginal form of provision? And do the patterns of benefits and costs they create make their future expansion desirable? Significant gaps in knowledge emerge in attempting to answer such questions. Furthermore, the relationship between the benefits and costs arising within collectives, and the form and function of these organisations, is poorly understood. Three housing collectives were studied intensively to address these gaps in knowledge. Ideas from realist social science and analytical sociology are brought to bear on processes of change. The study finds powerful constraints and enablements in the internal workings of collectives, as well as a series of external constraints and enablements arising through the structure of relations around the collectives. Residents and members of the collectives identified a range of costs and benefits. Causal mechanisms are introduced to show how these perceived outcomes are, in part, attributable to collective form and function. The rules governing collective forms blend with internal regulation, to generate certain costs and benefits. Furthermore, the history of each collective tends to shape current behaviours to preserve original ideals and achieve desired outcomes. The lessons from this research are far reaching for activists, support agencies and governments, revealing forms of agency and state intervention which can affect the conditions for future collectivism

Patently Impossible

The quest to achieve the impossible fuels creativity, spawns new fields of inquiry, illuminates old ones, and extends the frontiers of knowledge. It is difficult, however, to obtain a patent for an invention which seems impossible, incredible, or conflicts with well- established scientific principles. The principal patentability hurdle is operability, which an inventor cannot overcome if there is reason to doubt that the invention can really achieve the intended result. Despite its laudable gatekeeping role, this Article identifies two problems with the law of operability. First, though objective in theory, the operability analysis rests on subjective credibility assessments. These credibility assessments can introduce a bias toward unpatentability, with inventions emerging from new, poorly understood, and paradigm-shifting technologies as well as those from fields with a poor track record of success as the most vulnerable. Second, what happens when the impossible becomes possible? History reveals that the Patent Office and the courts will continue to deny patents for a long time thereafter. This Article argues that the mishandling of seemingly impossible inventions vitiates the presumption of patentability, prevents the patent system from sitting at the cutting edge of technology, and frustrates the patent system\u27s overarching goal to promote scientific and technological progress. In an effort to resolve these problems and fill a gap in patent scholarship, this Article offers a new framework for gauging the patentability of seemingly impossible inventions. Briefly, it contends that a more robust enforcement of patent law\u27s enablement requirement can and should perform the gatekeeping role because it can resolve whether an invention works by weighing objective, technical factors. This approach would quickly reveal technical merit for inventions that really work or, alternatively, the fatal flaw for inventions that are truly impossible. Its implementation would not only eliminate the need for the operability requirement, but it would also streamline patent examination, improve the disclosure function of the patent system, promote scientific and technological progress, and ultimately foster innovation

Invention, Refinement and Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents

The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) allows courts to expand the scope of patent rights granted by the Patent Office. The doctrine has been justified on fairness grounds, but it lacks a convincing economic justification. The standard economic justification holds that certain frictions block patent applicants from literally claiming appropriately broad rights, and thus, the DOE is available at trial to expand patent scope and overcome these frictions. The friction theory suffers from three main weaknesses. First, the theory is implausible on empirical grounds. Frictions such as limits of language, mistake, and unforeseeability are missing from the leading cases. Second, there is not a convincing answer to the question of why the doctrine of equivalents, rather than some other doctrinal approach, should be used to overcome the frictions. The frictions can be overcome, or at least mitigated, for example, by astutely amending claims during prosecution; through a reissue proceeding after the patent issues; or through artful claim drafting as an initial matter. Third, proponents of a far-reaching DOE fail to pay adequate attention to the notice function of patent claims and are insufficiently sensitive to patent law\u27s delicate incentive dynamic. We develop a better explanation of why claim breadth falls short of the maximum breadth allowed by patent law. Our explanation replaces the passive patent attorney depicted in the friction theory with an active inventor and attorney who are capable of responding effectively to the frictions mentioned above. Whether an inventor obtains the broadest permissible claim breadth depends mostly on the talent and effort of the inventor and attorney in identifying what has been enabled. A good attorney predicts the embodiments that could be chosen by infringers and finds appropriate language to draft a suitably broad claim. We call this process claim refinement, and we develop a refinement theory of the doctrine of equivalents. We justify the doctrine of equivalents primarily as a tool for promoting efficient investment in claim refinement. Although critics of the DOE contend the doctrine unduly inhibits competition, we show the degree of competition is often unaffected by the presence or absence of the DOE. The inventor can block competition in the absence of the DOE by drafting broad patent claims. The DOE should be used to avoid socially wasteful preemptive refinement. We reject the popular notion that the DOE is especially appropriate in the case of unforeseeable, later-developed technology. We reach this conclusion because in certain cases patent applicants can capture unforeseen embodiments at relatively low cost through clever claim drafting strategies. And in other cases unforeseen equivalents are unattainable no matter the amount of time and money spent on refinement efforts. In the latter cases, patent applicants would not exert much effort refining their claims to cover these equivalents, and inventor\u27s incentives would not be much affected by a minute probability of loss of effective patent protection

Invention, Refinement and Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents

The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) allows courts to expand the scope of patent rights granted by the Patent Office. The doctrine has been justified on fairness grounds, but it lacks a convincing economic justification. The standard economic justification holds that certain frictions block patent applicants from literally claiming appropriately broad rights, and thus, the DOE is available at trial to expand patent scope and overcome these frictions. The friction theory suffers from three main weaknesses. First, the theory is implausible on empirical grounds. Frictions such as limits of language, mistake, and unforeseeability are missing from the leading cases. Second, there is not a convincing answer to the question of why the doctrine of equivalents, rather than some other doctrinal approach, should be used to overcome the frictions. The frictions can be overcome, or at least mitigated, for example, by astutely amending claims during prosecution; through a reissue proceeding after the patent issues; or through artful claim drafting as an initial matter. Third, proponents of a far-reaching DOE fail to pay adequate attention to the notice function of patent claims and are insufficiently sensitive to patent law\u27s delicate incentive dynamic. We develop a better explanation of why claim breadth falls short of the maximum breadth allowed by patent law. Our explanation replaces the passive patent attorney depicted in the friction theory with an active inventor and attorney who are capable of responding effectively to the frictions mentioned above. Whether an inventor obtains the broadest permissible claim breadth depends mostly on the talent and effort of the inventor and attorney in identifying what has been enabled. A good attorney predicts the embodiments that could be chosen by infringers and finds appropriate language to draft a suitably broad claim. We call this process claim refinement, and we develop a refinement theory of the doctrine of equivalents. We justify the doctrine of equivalents primarily as a tool for promoting efficient investment in claim refinement. Although critics of the DOE contend the doctrine unduly inhibits competition, we show the degree of competition is often unaffected by the presence or absence of the DOE. The inventor can block competition in the absence of the DOE by drafting broad patent claims. The DOE should be used to avoid socially wasteful preemptive refinement. We reject the popular notion that the DOE is especially appropriate in the case of unforeseeable, later-developed technology. We reach this conclusion because in certain cases patent applicants can capture unforeseen embodiments at relatively low cost through clever claim drafting strategies. And in other cases unforeseen equivalents are unattainable no matter the amount of time and money spent on refinement efforts. In the latter cases, patent applicants would not exert much effort refining their claims to cover these equivalents, and inventor\u27s incentives would not be much affected by a minute probability of loss of effective patent protection

Collective realism: Exploring the development and the outcomes of urban housing collectives.

The undersupply of housing in England has created a pervasive sense of crisis about the delivery of sufficient new dwellings. Alternative forms of housing provision therefore merit further exploration, particularly those that can deliver low cost, stable accommodation in good condition. Potential remedies may be found in various models for collective ownership of housing. Housing collectives are organisations controlled by their members and residents, operating in a defined geography, which collectively own and manage land and housing for the benefit of a designated group. But why have such organisations consistently been a marginal form of provision? And do the patterns of benefits and costs they create make their future expansion desirable? Significant gaps in knowledge emerge in attempting to answer such questions. Furthermore, the relationship between the benefits and costs arising within collectives, and the form and function of these organisations, is poorly understood. Three housing collectives were studied intensively to address these gaps in knowledge. Ideas from realist social science and analytical sociology are brought to bear on processes of change. The study finds powerful constraints and enablements in the internal workings of collectives, as well as a series of external constraints and enablements arising through the structure of relations around the collectives. Residents and members of the collectives identified a range of costs and benefits. Causal mechanisms are introduced to show how these perceived outcomes are, in part, attributable to collective form and function. The rules governing collective forms blend with internal regulation, to generate certain costs and benefits. Furthermore, the history of each collective tends to shape current behaviours to preserve original ideals and achieve desired outcomes. The lessons from this research are far reaching for activists, support agencies and governments, revealing forms of agency and state intervention which can affect the conditions for future collectivism

REDD at the crossroads? The opportunities and challenges of REDD for conservation and human welfare in South West Uganda

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in the tropics could slow climate change while contributing to biodiversity conservation and to improvement of people’s livelihoods. In this study we assessed the opportunities and challenges of implementing REDD in South West (SW) Uganda. We consulted key stakeholders and reviewed regional literature particularly focusing on the opportunities for conservation and human welfare benefits. We structured our study using the Simpson and Vira (2010) framework for assessing policy interventions. The leading drivers of forest loss and degradation include escalating timber trade, fuel-wood extraction and agricultural expansion. Generally, local stakeholders had limited awareness of REDD, and local expectations appeared un-realistically high. Mechanisms for allocating and administering REDD payments remained unknown. However, Civil Society Organisations appeared the most popular option to manage REDD funding as government agencies had limited credibility. For REDD to succeed, the challenges we have highlighted will need to be addressed: key to success will be improvements in foundational knowledge, enabling institutions and social conditions. Our results have implications for potential REDD activities around the world which face similar challenges.This work was supported by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to Mbarara University of Science and Technology.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Inderscience via http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2015.07013