Nanotechnology and the Tragedy of the Anticommons: Towards a Strict Utility Requirement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanotechnology has been described as a transformative technology that will bring about the next industrial revolution. Over the last few decades, scientists and their research partners have acquired nanotechnology patents in a manner resembling a gold rush. The nanotechnology gold rush has specifically targeted nanomaterials, nanotechnology’s building blocks. Many of the patents that have been granted for nanomaterials are broad, general patents encompassing basic research. A driving force behind the patenting of basic research in nanotechnology was the development-oriented approach to patent rights. This approach emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and supported the widespread patenting of basic research in the 1980s and 1990s. Development-oriented theorists argued that the most efficient way to achieve the development and commercialization of research is to grant broad patents on research prospects shortly after their discovery. Beginning in 1998 with the publication of Michael A. Heller’s “The Tragedy of the Anticommons,” the beliefs held by development-oriented theorists have been challenged by proponents of “anticommons theory.” In particular, anticommons theorists questioned whether granting broad patents on research prospects necessarily leads to the efficient development of research. Anticommons theorists argued that this assumption fails to take into account the possibility that granting patents on research prospects could stifle development through the phenomenon of the tragedy of the anticommons. This article will examine the contemporary nanotechnology patent landscape in the United States of America to determine whether the broad patenting of nanomaterials has led to the creation of an anticommons. It will also examine whether this anticommons is likely to turn tragic, stifling innovation in nanotechnology. This article proposes the adoption of a strict utility requirement as a solution to the problems posed by the tragedy of the anticommons in nanotechnology in the US.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".