A basic economic case for reordering the patent market with gain-based remedies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a sizeable disparity between the advantages enabled by patent law remedies and the underlying rationale for the patent system. Furnishing solutions to the problem of patent opportunism, which is a product of this gap, is the singular purpose of this thesis. The nexus between patent remedies and the utilitarian social welfare goals of the patent system appears to have been understudied in major patent law jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). In these jurisdictions, focus has been placed more on managing the problems of the patent system attributable to patent law remedies, rather than addressing, head on, the nature of those remedies. This is not, however, the case in the United States of America (USA) where judges, government agencies and academics have expressed ongoing concerns over the tendency of patent law remedies to impact negatively on the social welfare goals of the patent system. Notwithstanding these articulated concerns, the fundamental reason for this negative tendency has been poorly identified, and recommendations to reform patent law remedies in response to it have been equally inadequate. Ted Sichelman's work titled 'Purging Patents of Private Law Remedies' ((2014) 92 Texas Law Review 528) and that of David Opderbeck titled 'Patent Damages and the Shape of Patent Law' ((2009) 89 Boston University Law Review 127) are a timely and valuable response to this problem. Both Sichelman and Opderbeck rightly blame patent opportunism on the ideological dissonance between the purpose of the patent system and the regime of legal remedies applied towards patent infringement. However, both scholars differ in their postulations of solutions to the problem. Sichelman has not yet put forward workable recommendations on how to replace the current remedies (particularly monetary remedies) prevailing in most patent law jurisdictions, with a view to reflecting the utilitarian nature of patents. Opderbeck suggests solutions that are workable but improvable. This thesis adds to the works of Sichelman and Opderbeck by postulating gain-based remedies‚ÄövÑvÆchiefly disgorgement and restitutionary reasonable royalties‚ÄövÑvÆ as the most pertinent species of monetary remedies suitable to furthering the utilitarian nature and objectives of patent entitlements. It is the submission of this thesis that these species of remedies will be effectual in stemming the tide of patent opportunism by changing the incentives of economic entities within the patent market, and correcting problems that emanate from the patent market's illiquidity.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".