Abstract
Recent studies and findings have unveiled that patent systems may not accomplish the goal of technological progress as well as a commons system, at least in terms of innovation, productivity, and social utility. Employing The Patent Game, a multi-user interactive simulation of patent and non-patent (commons and open source) systems, the authors of this Article are currently comparing rates of innovation, productivity, and social utility, but with expert users possessing formal expertise in patent law and open innovation.
This Article presents results of this study, which indicates no statistically significant difference in rates of innovation among a pure patent system, a patent/open source system, and a commons system. Interestingly, the results of this study are inconsistent with the orthodox assumption that patent systems generate more "progress" than do more open models of innovation, such as patent/open source or pure commons systems, and are more consistent with predictions and observations from the field of open innovation. This study and current and future articles on its findings, including this piece, hope to help public policy more effectively accomplish the Constitutional mandate of "promot[ing] the Progress of . . . Useful Arts."
Recommended Citation
Andrew W. Torrance & Bill Tomlinson,
Patent Expertise and the Regress of Useful Arts,
33
S. Ill. U. L.J.
239
(2009).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol33/iss2/4