Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- Index
- References
2 - Missing the Forest for the Trolls
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy , pp. 9 - 26Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., & Walker, Joshua, 2009. Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158: 1–37.Google Scholar
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., & Walker, Joshua, 2011. Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, Georgetown Law Journal 99: 677–712.Google Scholar
Bessen, James and Meurer, Michael J., 2014. The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, Cornell Law Review 99: 387–424.Google Scholar
Bessen, James, et al., 2011. The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Regulation Winter 2011–2012: 26–35.Google Scholar
Chapman, Gretchen B. and Bornstein, Brian H., 1996. The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts, Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: 519–540.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Gretchen B. and Johnson, Eric J., 2002. Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value. In Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, Dale and Kahneman, Daniel, editors, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen, 2013. Patent Trolls by the Numbers (Santa Clara University School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08–13).Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. and Lemley, Mark A., 2012. Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, Cornell Law Review 98: 1–46.Google Scholar
Cotropia, Christopher A. and Lemley, Mark A., 2009. Copying in Patent Law, North Carolina Law Review 87: 1421–1466.Google Scholar
Cournot, Augustin, 1838. Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. English translation of French original (New York: Kelly).Google Scholar
Feldman, Robin, Ewing, Tom and Jeruss, Sara, 2013. The AIA 500 Expanded: The Effects of Patent Monetization Entities, UCLA Journal of Law and Technology 17(2): 1–107.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Richard J., 2011. Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations in Standard-Setting Organizations, 2011, Antitrust Law Journal 77: 855–888.Google Scholar
IBM Press Release, 2013. IBM Tops U.S. Patent List for 20th Consecutive Year: IBM Inventors Deliver Innovation in Emerging Areas of Tech.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A., 2001. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, Northwestern University Law Review 95(4): 1495–1530 (2001).Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A., Jamie, Kendall, and Martin, Clint, 2013. Rush to Judgment? Trial Length and Outcomes in Patent Cases, AIPLA Quarterly Journal 41: 169.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. and Melamed, A. Douglas, 2013. Missing the Forest for the Trolls, Columbia Law Review 113: 2117–2190.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. and Sampat, Bhaven, 2008. Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp?, Emory Law Journal 58: 181–309.Google Scholar
PwC, 2012, 2012 Patent Litigation Study, available at www.pwc.com/en_US/us/forensic-services/publications/assets/2012-patent-litigation-study.pdf.Google Scholar