Farmers doing it for themselves: how farmer-inventors are frustrated by their interactions with the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System

Notwithstanding recent policy commitments to formally involve farmers in innovation through initiatives such as the European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI), the traditional perspective of the policy and academic literature in Europe has been that agricultural innovations are provided by others for farmers to adopt. In this context there has been relatively little research on the approaches of farmers who independently invent useful products and processes for themselves. This paper presents an analysis of Irish farmers’ inventing processes as a form of user innovation, using data generated from in-depth interviews with farmer-inventors and semi-structured interviews with key informants from agricultural organisations. The farmer-inventors mostly use tacit knowledge and practical skills to create their inventions with the objective of increasing efficiency as a means to improving family farm viability. Farmer-inventors with entrepreneurial intentions were less inclined to share their ideas freely and described financial and temporal constraints in commercialising their inventions. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) concept was used to frame an analysis of farmer-inventors’ interactions with innovation support organisations from the perspective of the farmers themselves. This allowed appraisal of the Irish AKIS’ support of farmer-led innovation relating to the positioning, visibility, and representation of farmers’ knowledge, inventions, and networks. This study contributes new knowledge about user innovation in European agriculture as EIP-AGRI co-production structures become established. It is proposed that farmers are a hitherto underappreciated source of independent knowledge and inventions in agricultural development and are poorly supported by AKIS institutions

Helical channel design and technology for cooling of muon beams

Novel magnetic helical channel designs for capture and cooling of bright muon beams are being developed using numerical simulations based on new inventions such as helical solenoid (HS) magnets and hydrogen-pressurized RF (HPRF) cavities. We are close to the factor of a million six-dimensional phase space (6D) reduction needed for muon colliders. Recent experimental and simulation results are presented.Comment: 6 pp. 14th Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop 13-19 Jun 2010: Annapolis, Marylan

Institutionalized Incentives for Ingenuity – Patent Value and the German Employees’ Inventions Act

Germany is one of few countries in which the monetary compensation for inventors is not only determined by negotiations between employer and employee-inventor, but also by relatively precise legal provisions. In this paper, we describe the characteristics of the German Employees’ Inventions Act (GEIA) and discuss which incentives it creates. We rely on responses from a recent survey of 3,350 German inventors to test hypotheses regarding this institution. We conclude from our data that the law creates substantial monetary rewards for productive inventors. The qualitative responses from our survey confirm this view, but also point to a number of dysfunctional effects

Discovery of cellular regulation by protein degradation

What follows is a story of some of the lab’s adventures mentioned above, including the inventions of new biochemical and genetic methods. This account stems, in part, from previous descriptions of the early history of the Ub field (31,32). Another antecedent is an interview I gave to Dr. Istvan Hargittai, a distinguished Hungarian chemist. It describes my life and science, including the early years in Moscow, the 1977 escape from the former Soviet Union, the essentially accidental hiring of me by MIT, and the work that ensued (33). The narrative below borrows from these sources, and mentions our more recent contributions as well

Patent Reality Checks: Eliminating Patents on Fake, Impossible and Other Inoperative Inventions

The recent assertion of patents originally held by Theranos, the defunct blood analysis company whose founders are under federal indictment for fraud, highlights the existence of patents that might claim non-existent or inoperative inventions. While such patents may ultimately be subject to validity challenges in court, their issuance nevertheless has harmful effects on markets and innovation. I propose several administrative and legislative measures directed toward the elimination of patents claiming inoperative inventions including (1) increasing USPTO efforts to detect potentially inoperable inventions, (2) heightening examination requirements, including a certification of enablement, for certain inventions, (3) enabling greater public input into the examination process, and (4) increasing penalties for fraudulent conduct before the USPTO. In addition to addressing inoperative inventions, some of these reforms could help to alleviate broader enablement concerns that have been identified by scholars over the past decade. Given the serious consequences that these issues have on markets and innovation, such measures merit serious consideration by the USPTO and Congress

Lessons from Bilski

In this paper, I will examine how the U.S. and Canadian courts have approached the patentability of intangible inventions and discuss whether any lessons can be learned from the U.S.’s patent dilemma. In section 2, I will review the American jurisprudence on patentability of intangible inventions. In section 3, I will discuss the potential impact Bilski may have on the American jurisprudence. Section 4 will assess the Canadian jurisprudence on patentability of intangible inventions. In section 5, I will discuss the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Amazon/FCC. I argue that based on recent events in the American jurisprudence, Canadian courts should carefully consider the consequences of opening up patent protection to intangible inventions because granting too much patent protection can impede innovation and endanger the patent system

Using Interactive Inventions

Interactive inventions are systems and processes that can be used by multiple actors at the same time. Many interactive inventions are the product of emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things that allow billions of everyday devices to communicate with each other via the Internet. Other interactive inventions are prevalent in the emerging fields of personalized medicine and FinTech (new financial technologies). Unfortunately, the law concerning how to determine liability when a patent directed to an interactive invention is infringed is dissonant across classes of inventions. Specifically, what it means to “use” an interactive system is different from what it means to “use” an interactive method. Why does the law treat these acts differently? Should it? This Article attempts to answer these important questions. Specifically, this Article contends that the current framework for what it means to “use” an interactive system is problematic. Interactive inventions are different than traditional method and system inventions. Unfortunately, courts have too often applied, especially in recent cases involving interactive systems, an outmoded framework to interactive inventions. When interactive inventions are analyzed under the proper framework, it allows for the application of sound legal principles to solve multi- actor liability problems. Specifically, this Article argues that a direct infringer “uses” an interactive system when it controls the system and obtains a benefit from it. This approach is also more consistent with the recently broadened standard for infringement of interactive methods

The Meaning of Patent Citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve Survey of Patentees

A survey of recent patentees was conducted to elicit their perceptions regarding the importance of their inventions, the extent of their communication with other inventors, and the relationship of both importance and communication to observed patent citations. A cohort of 1993 patentees were asked specifically about 2 patents that they had cited, and a third placebo' patent that was similar but which they did not cite. One of the two cited inventors was also surveyed. We find that inventors report significant communication, at least some of which is in forms that suggests spillovers from the cited inventor to the citing inventor. The perception of such communication was substantively and statistically significantly greater for the cited patents than for the placebos. There is, however, a large amount of noise in citations data; it appears that something like one-half of all citations do not correspond to any perceived communication, or even necessarily to a perceptible technological relationship between the inventions. We also find a significant correlation between the number of citations a patent received and its importance (both economic and technological) as perceived by the inventor.

Patent Fakes: How Fraudulent Inventions Threaten Public Health, Innovation, and the Economy

Because there is no practical way for patent examiners to verify that the inventions claimed in patent applications actually work, a surprising number of patents are issued for inventions that have turned out to be imaginary, fraudulent or otherwise non-existent. What\u27s more, as illustrated by the recent attempt by Labrador Diagnostics to assert a patent acquired from now-defunct Theranos against firms developing testing kits for COVID-19, these patents present a genuine threat to businesses operating in important sectors of the economy. While it is unrealistic to expect patent examiners to verify the functionality of every claimed invention, there are a range of administrative adjustments that could be made to reduce the number of fake inventions subject to patents

Patentability of Chemical Selection Inventions: The Olanzapine and Escitalopram Decisions

The thesis is a response to the recent decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice on the patentability requirements of selection inventions, namely, the Olanzapine and Escitalopram decisions