Innovation and the Patent Attorney

Notes And References

• A Bill to Amend Part I of Title 35, United States Code, to Provide for the Protection of Inventors Contracting for Invention Development Services House of Representatives 2419, 28 September 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Advertisement by patent attorney, Inventors’ Digest, November-December 1995, p. 45.
   Google Scholar
• For example, Watchdog programme, broadcast BBC 1, 12 December 1994, BBC transcript 1 LFE E165S; ‘ISC-their side of the story’, Inventors World, 3, 1995, pp. 38–41.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Kirk, ‘Testimony of Deputy Commissioner’, Patent & Trademark Office Society, October 1994, pp. 731–740.
   Google Scholar
• Gerald Udell, ‘Unsolicited product ideas—a new evaluation program’, Research Management, 19, 4, 1976, pp. 14–17.
   Google Scholar
• Steve Gibson, ‘US patent office's softening opens floodgates for lawsuits’, Infoworld, 14, 35, 1992, p. 36.
   Google Scholar
• League for Programming Freedom as quoted in Brett Glass, ‘Patently unfair?’, Infoworld, 12, 44, 1990, p. 62.
   Google Scholar
• Seth Shulman, ‘Patent medicine’, Technology Review, 98, 8, 1995, pp. 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander E. Silverman, ‘Intellectual property law and the venture capital process’, High Technology Law Journal, 5, 1, 1990, pp. 157–192.
   Google Scholar
• Nancy Perry, ‘The surprising new power of patents’, Fortune, 23 June 1986, pp. 73–83.
   Google Scholar
• See Kerry Schott, Industrial Innovation in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, British North American Committee, London, 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Gerald Udell, ‘It's still caveat, inventor’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 1990, pp. 230–243.
   Google Scholar
• Brett Glass, ‘Patently unfair?’, Infoworld, 12, 44, 1990, pp. 56–62.
   Google Scholar
• David Teece, ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15, 1986, pp. 285–305.
   Google Scholar
• David Teece, ‘Capturing value from technological innovation: integration, strategic partnering, and licensing decisions’, Interfaces, 18, 3, 1988, pp. 46–61.
   Google Scholar
• W. Kingston (ed.), Direct Protection of Innovation, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• A most excellent exception, wrought from a remarkable combination of legal and economic perspectives on patents and innovation, is Robert Merges, ‘Commercial success and patent standards: economic perspectives on innovation’, California Law Review, 76, 1988, pp. 805–876.
   Google Scholar
• Merges, op. cit., Ref. 6.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., p. 876.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Blackman, ‘Taking patent information services to small and medium enterprises’, Intellectual Property in Asia and the Pacific, 40, 1994, pp. 44–67, see p. 47.
   Google Scholar
• Seth Shulman, ‘Patent medicine’, Technology Review, 98, 8, 1995, pp. 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin Feller, ‘Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: they think they can’, Research Policy, 19, 1990, pp. 335–348.
   Google Scholar
• Ian Harvey as quoted in David Harvey, ‘BTG: the mother of invention’, Director, September 1989, pp. 121–122.
   Google Scholar
• Kenneth Labich, ‘The innovators’, Fortune, 6 June 1988, pp. 27–32, see p. 30.
   Google Scholar
• Ronald Rothchild, ‘Making patents work for small companies’, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1987, pp. 24–30.
   Google Scholar
• Report of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness (1985) as quoted in Alexander E. Silverman, ‘Intellectual property law and the venture capital process’, High Technology Law Journal, 5, 1, 1990, pp. 157–192, see footnote 110.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense Science Board Task Force on Export of US Technology, An Analysis of Export Control of US Technology—a DOD Perspective, Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DC, February 1976, p. iii.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas Southard in Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Government Affairs, Senate Hearings, Transfer of United States High Technology to the Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc Nations, USGPO, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 53.
   Google Scholar
• Theodore Wu, ‘The citizen partner: a key force in effective strategic export control’, Signal, August 1983, pp. 106–108.
   Google Scholar
• C. W. Olney, ‘The secret world of the industrial spy’, Business and Society Review, 64, 1988, pp. 28–32.
   Google Scholar
• See, in particular, Eric von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Stephan Schrader, ‘Informal technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information trading’, Research Policy, 20, 1991, pp. 153–170.
   Google Scholar
• Manfredi La Manna, Ross MacLeod & David de Meza, ‘The case for permissive patents’, European Economic Review, 33, 1989, pp. 1427–1443.
   Google Scholar
• Edwin Mansfield, ‘How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out?’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 1985, pp. 217–223.
   Google Scholar
• Donald Spero, ‘Patent protection or piracy—a CEO views Japan’, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1990, pp. 58–67.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Levin, Alvin Klevorick, Richard Nelson & Sidney Winter, ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Francis Tapon, A transaction cost analysis of innovations in the organization of pharmaceutical R&D’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 12, 1989, pp. 197–213.
   Google Scholar
• C.T. Taylor & Z.H. Silberston, The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, p. 231.
   Google Scholar
• William Miller, ‘Productivity and competition: a look at the pharmaceutical industry’, Columbia Journal of World Business, Fall, 1988, pp. 85–88.
   Google Scholar
• Robert Merges as quoted in ‘Patent plague’, Forbes ASAP Supplement, 1993, p. 62.
   Google Scholar
• Karen Howes, ‘The shield and the sword’, Satellite Communications, 17, 1, 1993, pp. 6A-9A, see p. 7A.
   Google Scholar
• Don Lamberton, ‘Innovation and intellectual property’ in Mark Dodgson & Roy Rothwell (eds), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Elgar, Aldershot, 1994, pp. 301–309, see p. 307. See also ‘The harm of patents’, Economist, 22 August 1992, p. 15.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander E. Silverman, ‘Intellectual property law and the venture capital process’, High Technology Law Journal, 5, 1, 1990, pp. 157–192, see footnote 62.
   Google Scholar
• Geof Bowker, ‘What's in a patent?’ in W.E. Bijker & J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology—Building Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 53–74, see p. 61.
   Google Scholar
• Brett Glass, ‘Modem users, fear not; it's just the sound of patent attorneys’, Infoworld, 14, 31, 1992, p. 81.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Brett Glass, ‘Patently unfair?’, Infoworld, 12, 44, 1990, pp. 56–62.
   Google Scholar
• Laudeline Auriol and Francois Pham, ‘What pattern in patents?’ OECD Observer, 179, December 1992-January 1993, pp. 15–18.
   Google Scholar
• Charles Moss & Ann Evans, ‘Protecting ideas and new products’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, September-October 1987, pp. 21–24.
   Google Scholar
• Nancy Perry, ‘The surprising new power of patents’, Fortune, 23 June 1986, pp. 73–81, see p. 80.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, ‘Optimal patent length and breadth’, Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 1, 1990, pp. 106–112, see p. 112.
   Google Scholar
• J J. Eaton & D. Bawden, ‘What kind of resource is information?’, International Journal of Information Management, 11, 1991, pp. 156–165.
   Google Scholar
• E. Sciberras, ‘Indicators of technical intensity and international competitiveness: a case for supplementing quantitative data with qualitative studies in research’, R&D Management, 16, 1, 1986, pp. 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Mann & Patrick Canary, ‘Protecting innovation through patents’, Business and Economic Review, 39, 2, 1993, pp. 25–27.
   Google Scholar
• For example, Daniele Archibugi, ‘The inter-industry distribution of technological capabilities. A case study in the application of the Italian patenting in the USA’, Technovation, 7, 1988, pp. 259–274.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Hidden agenda’, Economist, 20 November 1993, pp. 134–137.
   Google Scholar
• J.D. Frame & F. Narin, ‘The United States, Japan and the changing technological balance’, Research Policy, 19, 1990, pp. 447–455.
   Google Scholar
• Donald Spero, ‘Patent protection or piracy—a CEO views Japan’, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1990, pp. 58–67.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgio Sirilli, ‘Patents and inventors: an empirical study’, Research Policy, 16, 1987, pp. 157–174.
   Google Scholar
• For example, Pari Patel & Keith Pavitt, ‘A comparison of technological activities in West Germany and the United Kingdom’, National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, May 1989, pp. 27–42.
   Google Scholar
• Amram R. Shapiro, ‘Responding to the changing patent system’, Research Technology Management, 33, 5, 1990, pp. 38–43.
   Google Scholar
• The Importance of Protecting your Idea, Litman Law Offices, Arlington, VA, n.d.
   Google Scholar