14,398 research outputs found
Publish or Perish
The race model has been the darling of patent economists and game theorists. This model assumes that the winner, namely the first to invent, takes the patent grant with the market dominance that comes with it, whereas the second comer, in the best tradition of sports contests, obligingly accepts her loss and quietly vanishes from the scene. While the sports analogy has provided a useful framework for understanding the economics of invention, it has obfuscated an important aspect of the inventive process: the possibility of strategic publication of research findings in order to prevent the issuance of a patent to a competitor. Captured by the sports analogy, patent scholars have consistently presupposed that the loser of a patent race must behave in a sportsmanlike fashion and gracefully accept her fate. But there is no reason whatsoever why competition in the inventive field should conform to the rules of sports. The stakes and payoff matrices of patent races are considerably different from those of sports contests, and, thus, it is only natural to expect firms in a patent race to deviate from the norms of fair competition in sports. The nature of patent races is much more complex than that of other races. Ceding a patent to a competitor may often spell a substantial drop in revenues for the losing firm, and in some cases may even drive the loser out of the market. Therefore, trying to win the race may not always be the profit-maximizing strategy. Rather, in many patent races the superior strategy for one or more of the competing firms would be to prevent other firms from winning the race by publishing their research findings. Recharacterizing patent races in this way implies that firms that are about to lose in a patent race often face a dilemma all too familiar to academics, the choice of publish or perish
Publish or Perish
The race model has been the darling of patent economists and game theorists. This model assumes that the winner, namely the first to invent, takes the patent grant with the market dominance that comes with it, whereas the second comer, in the best tradition of sports contests, obligingly accepts her loss and quietly vanishes from the scene. While the sports analogy has provided a useful framework for understanding the economics of invention, it has obfuscated an important aspect of the inventive process: the possibility of strategic publication of research findings in order to prevent the issuance of a patent to a competitor. Captured by the sports analogy, patent scholars have consistently presupposed that the loser of a patent race must behave in a sportsmanlike fashion and gracefully accept her fate. But there is no reason whatsoever why competition in the inventive field should conform to the rules of sports. The stakes and payoff matrices of patent races are considerably different from those of sports contests, and, thus, it is only natural to expect firms in a patent race to deviate from the norms of fair competition in sports. The nature of patent races is much more complex than that of other races. Ceding a patent to a competitor may often spell a substantial drop in revenues for the losing firm, and in some cases may even drive the loser out of the market. Therefore, trying to win the race may not always be the profit-maximizing strategy. Rather, in many patent races the superior strategy for one or more of the competing firms would be to prevent other firms from winning the race by publishing their research findings. Recharacterizing patent races in this way implies that firms that are about to lose in a patent race often face a dilemma all too familiar to academics, the choice of publish or perish
Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: evidence from the Pacific
This paper uses a unique survey to examine the nature and extent of knowledge flows that result from the international mobility of researchers whose initial education was in small island countries. Current migrants produce substantially more research than similar-skilled return migrants and non-migrants. Return migrants have no greater research impact than individuals who never migrate but are the main source of research knowledge transfer between international and local researchers. Our results contrast with previous claims in the literature that too few migrant researchers ever return home to have much impact, and that there is no productivity gain to researchers from migration
Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review
Bibliometrics has become an essential tool for assessing and analyzing the output of scientists, cooperation between
universities, the effect of state-owned science funding on national research and development performance and educational
efficiency, among other applications. Therefore, professionals and scientists need a range of theoretical and practical
tools to measure experimental data. This review aims to provide an up-to-date review of the various tools available
for conducting bibliometric and scientometric analyses, including the sources of data acquisition, performance analysis
and visualization tools. The included tools were divided into three categories: general bibliometric and performance
analysis, science mapping analysis, and libraries; a description of all of them is provided. A comparative analysis of the
database sources support, pre-processing capabilities, analysis and visualization options were also provided in order to
facilitate its understanding. Although there are numerous bibliometric databases to obtain data for bibliometric and
scientometric analysis, they have been developed for a different purpose. The number of exportable records is between
500 and 50,000 and the coverage of the different science fields is unequal in each database. Concerning the analyzed
tools, Bibliometrix contains the more extensive set of techniques and suitable for practitioners through Biblioshiny.
VOSviewer has a fantastic visualization and is capable of loading and exporting information from many sources. SciMAT
is the tool with a powerful pre-processing and export capability. In views of the variability of features, the users need to
decide the desired analysis output and chose the option that better fits into their aims
Impact of Global Patent and Regulatory Reform on Patent Strategies for Biotechnology
I come to you this morning not as an intellectual property lawyer but as a former general counsel of biotechnology and pharmaceutical related companies, as an attorney with significant exposure to intellectual property issues and as one who has seen first-hand the importance of intellectual property in shaping commercial strategies in biotechnology. With that as a backdrop, I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share with you today thoughts that I have regarding patents and the impact of patent reform on biotechnology. It has been said that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. However, I believe that the best way to control the future is to patent it
Understanding the ethical concerns that have shaped European regulation of human embryonic stem cell research
Human embryonic stem cell research has generated much hope, but also fear and repulsion. National legislators, as well as the European Parliament, the European Patent Office and the European Court of Justice have had to make decisions relating to what is or is not allowed in the field of hESC research and patenting, and their decisions are often difficult to reconcile. In order to understand this divergence and the specific restrictions that different regulators impose, insight is needed into the different opinions regarding the moral status of the pre-implantation embryo (blastocyst), into the moral distinction between using IVF embryos donated for research versus creating embryos for research purposes, and into the moral distinction between producing and using hESC lines for non-commercial research and allowing such production and research in a commercial or industrial setting. While one need not agree that all of these perceived differences are in fact morally relevant, knowing that many people perceive them as being relevant is in itself valuable for understanding the debate and the decisions that different regulators make
- …