About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


89 Va. L. Rev. 1575 (2003)
Policy Levers in Patent Law

handle is hein.journals/valr89 and id is 1593 raw text is: VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 89 NOVEMBER 2003 NUMBER 7 ARTICLE POLICY LEVERS IN PATENT LAW' Dan L. Burkt and Mark A. Lemley* INTRODUCTION....................................................... ..1576 I. HETEROGENEITY IN INNOVATION AND PATENT LAW..............1580 A. The Industry-Specific Nature of Innovation.....................1581 B. The Industry-Specific Nature of the Patent System.........1589 II. HETEROGENEITY IN PATENT THEORY .....................................1595 A. The Confusion in Patent Theory........................................1596 1. Prospect Theory ..............................................................1600 2. Competitive Innovation .................................................1604 3. Cumulative Innovation...................................................1607 4. The Anticommons...........................................................1610 5. Patent Thickets ................................................................1614 © 2003 Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley. 'Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor of Law, University of Minnesota. 'Professor of Law, Boalt Hall, University of California at Berkeley; of counsel, Keker & Van Nest LLP. Thanks to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Distin- guished Visitor Program and the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy for their gen- erous support in the preparation of this Article. Kristen Dahling, Laura Quilter, Col- leen Chien, and Bhanu Sadasivan provided research assistance. John Allison, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Rebecca Eisenberg, Richard Epstein, Dan Farber, Brett Frisch- mann, Nancy Gallini, Wendy Gordon, Rose Hagan, Bruce Hayden, David Hyman, Brian Kahin, Dennis Karjala, Clarisa Long, David McGowan, Rob Merges, Craig Nard, Arti Rai, Pam Samuelson, Herb Schwartz, Polk Wagner, and participants at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, the Washington University Con- ference on the Human Genome, the University of Toronto Conference on Competi- tion and Innovation, and a faculty workshop at the University of Minnesota Law School all provided comments on an earlier draft of this, or a related, paper. Any re- maining errors are entirely their fault, and frankly, we're surprised they didn't catch them. 1575