Privacy In The Smart Grid: An Information Flow Analysis

Project Final Report prepared for CIEE and California Energy Commissio

Using patterns in the automatic marking of ER-Diagrams

This paper illustrates how the notion of pattern can be used in the automatic analysis and synthesis of diagrams, applied particularly to the automatic marking of ER-diagrams. The paper describes how diagram patterns fit into a general framework for diagram interpretation and provides examples of how patterns can be exploited in other fields. Diagram patterns are defined and specified within the area of ER-diagrams. The paper also shows how patterns are being exploited in a revision tool for understanding ER-diagrams

Rules for Patents

There is widespread agreement that the patent system in the United States is in need of reform. Most of the proposals for patent reform that have proliferated in recent years share two common assumptions: first, that patent policy is best made through case-bycase adjudication of the validity of individual patents; and, second, that the existing allocation of authority over patent policy, in which the courts are primarily responsible for interpreting and applying the broad language of the Patent Act, ought not to be disturbed. ThisArticle challenges both assumptions. I approach the problem of patent reform primarily as a problem of sound administration rather than innovation policy and argue that Congress should grant the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) substantive rule-making authority. The administrative structure of the patent system has been largely unchanged since 1836. But the administrative tasks that a wellperforming patent system must carry out have changed markedly since that time. Most importantly, technology in the early- to midnineteenth century was relatively uniform. Today, by contrast, the process of innovation varies widely among different technologies and different industries. If the patent system is to meet its goal of providing incentives for innovation, it must self-consciously tailor the elements of patentability—both rules and standards—to those diverse circumstances. Optimal patent policymaking requires forward-looking deliberation and cost-benefit analysis based on technological and economic expertise; clarity and predictability so that entities making investment choices based on the property-like aspects of patents can be confident in the legal regime governing those rights; and transparency and accountability to ensure that the public interest—which is often distinct from the interests of patent holders—is taken into account. Unlike courts, agencies acting through rulemaking cangather and expertly analyze all of the relevant information to make express policy judgments based on costs and benefits, can decide issues prospectively and avoid piecemeal decision making, and can systematically engage the public in the policy-making process. Although agencies are subject to certain well-understood institutional pathologies, such as capture by powerful interests, on balance they are more likely to make effective patent policy than courts. Granting the PTO substantive rule-making authority would require significant changes to the structure and function of that agency, and to the role of the courts. The PTO would require the addition of a policy-making capacity separate but capable of drawing insights from the examination process. The courts in turn would play a constructive secondary role by surfacing issues that require attention in the interstices of agency rules and engaging in judicial review of those rules under traditional standards of administrative law

Exchanging Information Without Intellectual Property

Contracting over information is notoriously difficult. Nearly fifty years ago, Kenneth Arrow articulated a “fundamental paradox” that arises when two parties try to exchange information. To complete such a transaction, the buyer of information must be able to place a value on the information. But once the seller discloses the information, the buyer can take it without paying. The conventional solution to this disclosure paradox is intellectual property. If the information is protected by a patent or a copyright then the seller can disclose the information free in the knowledge that the buyer can be enjoined against making, using, or selling it without permission. This account of information exchange forms the basis for an increasingly popular argument in favor of strong and broad intellectual property rights for the purpose of overcoming the disclosure paradox and thereby facilitating the development and commercialization of ideas. That argument, however, rests on assumptions about the nature of information that are neither theoretically nor empirically justified. This article explains that, contrary to the conventional account of the disclosure paradox, information is not always nonexcludable and is not always a homogeneous asset. Instead, information is complex and multifaceted, subject to some inherent limitations but also manipulable by its holders. These characteristics give rise to a range of strategies for engaging in information exchange, of which intellectual property is only one. Information holders can use the characteristics of information itself as well as contractual and norms-based mechanisms and other legal or business strategies to achieve exchange. And examples drawn from fields as diverse and disparate as software and biotechnology show that entrepreneurs and inventors use these strategies alone or in combination to effectively link their ideas with capital and development skills, often without intellectual property playing a significant role in the transaction. Intellectual property is therefore not necessary to promote robust markets for information and is, in fact, just as contingent and context-specific a solution to the paradox as the alternatives described here. At the very least, then, there is reason to doubt that commercialization theories founded upon information exchange provide a standalone justification for intellectual property. This article urges caution in policy interventions that seek to respond to the disclosure paradox and sets the stage for future empirical research to better understand the dynamics of information exchange strategies and the social welfare costs and benefits that may accompany them

Reply - Commercialization without Exchange

In this brief reply to Prof. Ted Sichelman’s comments on my article Exchanging Information Without Intellectual Property, I argue that justifications for intellectual property that rely on the incentives exclusive rights offer for commercialization are not economically distinguishable from traditional theories based on incentives to invent or create in the first instance. Because innovation is not an event but a process, innovative activities may be subject to misappropriation – and therefore under-production – at multiple points along the supply chain that runs from conception to commercialization. The grant of exclusive rights is an intervention that can be made at any of these points. Whether granted early or late in the innovation process, the economic function of the intervention is the same. Similarly, the intervention is subject to similar critiques – most notably that their social welfare costs exceed their benefits and that alternative forms of incentive may be just as effective at lower social cost – regardless of when it is made. The incentives-based “commercialization theory” therefore is really just a version of traditional “reward theory” set later in time. In my work, I isolate and critique a different economic function that exclusive rights may serve with respect to commercialization: that of facilitating exchange

Innovation Prizes in Practice and Theory

Innovation prizes in reality are significantly different from innovation prizes in theory. The former are familiar from popular accounts of historical prizes like the Longitude Prize: the government offers a set amount for a solution to a known problem, like £20,000 for a method of calculating longitude at sea. The latter are modeled as compensation to inventors in return for donating their inventions to the public domain. Neither the economic literature nor the policy literature that led to the 2010 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act — which made prizes a prominent tool of government innovation policy — provides a satisfying justification for the use of prizes, nor does either literature address their operation. In this article, we address both of these problems. We use a case study of one canonical, high profile innovation prize — the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize — to explain how prizes function as institutional means to achieve exogenously defined innovation policy goals in the face of significant uncertainty and information asymmetries. Focusing on the structure and function of actual innovation prizes as an empirical matter enables us to make three theoretical contributions to the current understanding of prizes. First, we offer a stronger normative justification for prizes grounded in their status as a key institutional arrangement for solving a specified innovation problem. Second, we develop a model of innovation prize governance and then situate that model in the administrative state, as a species of new governance or experimental regulation. Third, we derive from those analyses a novel framework for choosing among prizes, patents, and grants, one in which the ultimate choice depends on a trade off between the efficacy and scalability of the institutional solution

Temperature sensitivity of the pyloric neuromuscular system and its modulation by dopamine

We report here the effects of temperature on the p1 neuromuscular system of the stomatogastric system of the lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Muscle force generation, in response to both the spontaneously rhythmic in vitro pyloric network neural activity and direct, controlled motor nerve stimulation, dramatically decreased as temperature increased, sufficiently that stomach movements would very unlikely be maintained at warm temperatures. However, animals fed in warm tanks showed statistically identical food digestion to those in cold tanks. Applying dopamine, a circulating hormone in crustacea, increased muscle force production at all temperatures and abolished neuromuscular system temperature dependence. Modulation may thus exist not only to increase the diversity of produced behaviors, but also to maintain individual behaviors when environmental conditions (such as temperature) vary