The patent paradox – New insights through decision support using compound options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By considering the patent from the perspective of a compound option it is possible to offer useful insights into what a patent does, when it is worth patenting, and the effects of changes to patent regulation and enforcement in terms of maximizing economic and societal benefits. A paradox exists because stronger patent laws with longer durations allow greater profit to the inventor, but strong and long patent protection discourages related innovation as the protection for the underlying technology becomes broader and duration is longer. Through the demonstration that under current regulation the net present value of a sample patentable invention must be a little over half a million dollars ($556,000) at the time of patent filing, insight is offered into when it is economically advisable to patent. The effect of changes to patent regulation can also be rapidly assessed using this technique. Consequently, the compound option provides value to policy makers for decision support in assessing the impact of changes to patent policy and to inventors and patent attorneys on assessing whether it is economically rational to patent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".