| dc.creator |
Hunter, Starling David, III |
|
| dc.date |
2003-08-15T19:35:31Z |
|
| dc.date |
2003-08-15T19:35:31Z |
|
| dc.date |
2003-08-15T19:35:31Z |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2013-06-04T16:19:48Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2013-06-04T16:19:48Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2013-06-05 |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/3538 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://koha.mediu.edu.my:8181/xmlui/handle/1721 |
|
| dc.description |
This study presents the results of an empirical test of two hypotheses concerning the
quality of a group of data processing patents on methods of doing business. The
hypotheses are motivated by two frequently voiced criticisms of these patents: that
their scope is overly broad and that they cite too little "prior art" (the extant body of
knowledge or the array of prior solutions to the problem which the patented invention
purports to solve). Using a sample of over 3,500 data processing, software, and
internet patents granted between 1975-1999, I tested the two hypotheses with three
patent statistics - the number of patent and non-patent prior art citations and the
number of claims. In short, I find little support for the "conventional wisdom"
concerning patents on methods of doing business. More specifically, I find that these
patents neither cite less patent or non-patent prior nor make more claims While these
findings don't completely exonerate business method patents of the charges of inferior
quality, they do suggest that, at a minimum, they are no worse than other data
processing patents along these two aspects of patent quality |
|
| dc.format |
239476 bytes |
|
| dc.format |
application/pdf |
|
| dc.language |
en_US |
|
| dc.relation |
MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper;4326-03 |
|
| dc.subject |
Patents |
|
| dc.subject |
Business Method Patents |
|
| dc.subject |
Intellectual Property |
|
| dc.subject |
Data Processing |
|
| dc.subject |
Electronic Commerce |
|
| dc.title |
Have Business Method Patents Gotten a Bum Rap? Some Empirical Evidence |
|
| dc.type |
Working Paper |
|