Values Matter: Patent Office, Innovation and the Social Contract
Values Matter: Patent Office, Innovation and the Social Contract
Barra lateral del artículo
PDF (English)
FLIP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Según la teoría del contrato social de las patentes, los Estados otorgan una exclusividad comercial a los inventores a cambio de la divulgación de la tecnología, con el objetivo de facilitar futuras innovaciones. El argumento que defenderé es que, bajo la lógica de la teoría del contrato social, la falta de orientación por ciertos valores epistémicos puede contribuir a un escenario en el que la divulgación de invenciones no promueva la innovación tecnológica. Primero, explico cómo la visibilidad y accesibilidad de la información divulgada pueden verse afectadas por problemas en las bases de datos y los motores de búsqueda de patentes. Segundo, analizo cómo las oficinas de patentes pueden no estar fomentando la búsqueda ni la formación de los examinadores. Este estudio se basa principalmente en doce entrevistas en profundidad con examinadores de patentes españoles. La información analizada sugiere situaciones que pueden afectar la forma en que la tesis del contrato explica: (1) la difusión de la información y (2) los valores epistémicos que conducen a la innovación tecnológica.
Palabras clave:
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Baruffaldi, S., & Raffo, J. (2017). “The geography of duplicated inventions: evidence from patent citations”. Regional Studies 51(8): 1232–1245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1280152
Carrara, P., & Russo, D. (2017). “Patent searches opinion: How to minimize the risk when reviewing patent applications”. World Patent Information 49: 43–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2017.05.003
Chang, H. F. (1995). “Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation”. RAND Journal of Economics 26 (1): 34–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2556034
Constitución Española (1978, Diciembre 29). Boletín Oficial del Estado. Diekmann, S., & Peterson, M. (2013). “The Role of Non-Epistemic Values in Engineering Models”. Science and Engineering Ethics 19: 207–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9300-4
Drahos, P. (2010). The Global Governance of Knowledge. Patent Offices and their Clients. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676581
Eckert, A., & Langinier, C. (2014). “A Survey of the Economics of Patent Systems and Procedures”. Journal of Economic Surveys 28 (5): 996–1015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12034
Eisenberg, R. (1989). “Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use”. University of Chicago Law Review 56 (3): 1017–1086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1599761
European Patent Office. (2012). Patent teaching kit – Protect your ideas. Munich. Retrieved from https://e-courses.epo.org/pluginfile.php/1428/mod_resource/content/1/data/cm1.pdf
Gallini, N., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). “Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?” Innovation Policy and the Economy 2: 51–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/653754
Griliches, Z. (1990). “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey”. Journal of Economic Literature 28(4): 1661–1707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w3301
Hegde, D., & Raj, M. (2019). “Does Gender Affect Work? Evidence from U.S. Patent Examination”. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3339555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3339555
Huby, R., & Schenk, V. T. (1994). “Some problems in the translation of Japanese patents”. World Patent Information 16 (3): 154–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0172-2190(94)90129-5
Kuhn, J. M. (2011). “Information Overload at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Reframing the Duty of Disclosure in Patent Law as a Search and Filter Problem”. Yale Journal of Law and Technology 90: 89–140.
Langinier, C., & Marcoul, P. (2020). “Monetary and implicit incentives of patent examiners”. Journal of Economics and Business 110: 105906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2020.105906
Larroyed, A. A. (2018). “Machine Translation and Disclosure of Patent Information”. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 49 (7): 763–786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0736-9
Larroyed, A. A. (2019). Translation accuracy and dissemination of disclosure of patent information: an analysis of translation and its influence on patent law. Proefschrift Maken Maastricht.
Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2012). “Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes”. The Review of Economics and Statistics 94 (3): 817–827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00194
McMullin, E. (1982). “Values in Science”. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 (2): 3–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1982.2.192409
Nagar, V., Schoenfeld, J., & Wellman, L. (2019). “The effect of economic policy uncertainty on investor information asymmetry and management disclosures”. Journal of Accounting and Economics 67 (1): 36–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.08.011
Nelson, R. R. (1989). “What Is Private and What Is Public About Technology?” Science, Technology, & Human Values 14 (3): 229–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398901400302
Nordhaus, W. D. (1969). “An Economic Theory of Technological Change”. The American Economic Review 59 (2): 18–28.
OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual. OECD-EUROSTAT. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
OEPM. (2013). Memoria de Actividades. Available at http://www.oepm.gob.es/export/sites/oepm/comun/documentos_relacionados/Memorias_de_Actividades_y_Estadisticas/Memorias_de_actividades/Memoria_de_Actividades_2013_ES.pdf
OEPM. (2018). “Entrevista a José Antonio Gil Celedonio, nuevo Director de la OEPM”. Marchamos. Revista de Comunicación Interna de La OEPM 62: 4–12.
OEPM. (2021). “Entrevista al Director de la OEPM”. Marchamos. Revista de Comunicación Interna de La OEPM 71: 2–10.
Ohms, J. (2021). “Current methodologies for chemical compound searching in patents: A case study”. World Patent Information 66: 102055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2021.102055
Righi, C., & Simcoe, T. (2019). “Patent examiner specialization”. Research Policy 48 (1): 137–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.003
Sáiz, P., & Amengual, R. (2018). “Do patents enable disclosure? Strategic innovation management of the four-stroke engine”. Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (6): 975–997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty018
Schuett, F. (2013). “Patent quality and incentives at the patent office”. The RAND Journal of Economics 44 (2): 313–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12021
Silvast, A., Laes, E., Abram, S., & Bombaerts, G. (2020). “What do energy modellers know? An ethnography of epistemic values and knowledge models”. Energy Research & Social Science 66: 101495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101495
van Dulken, S. (2014). “Do you know English? The challenge of the English language for patent searchers”. World Patent Information 39: 35–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2014.09.006
Wang, D. (2009). “Chinese to English automatic patent machine translation at SIPO”. World Patent Information 31 (2): 137–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2008.10.003
Whitman, K. (2011). “Intellogist: An online community dedicated to comparing major patent search systems”. World Patent Information 33 (2): 168–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2010.12.007
WIPO. (2021). World Intellectual Property Indicators 2021. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
Ying, C., Shuyu, Y., Jing, L., Lin, D., & Qi, Q. (2021). “Errors of Machine Translation of terminology in the patent text from English into Chinese”. ASP Transactions on Computers 1 (1): 12–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52810/TC.2021.100022
Citado por
