MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945806566 · doi:10.25959/23240630

A basic economic case for reordering the patent market with gain-based remedies

2017· dissertation· en· W6945806566 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUTAS Research Repository · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLegal and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesPatent lawBlamePatent trollOpportunismGovernment (linguistics)TortPunitive damagesPatent Act

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it