Abstract: One of the most hotly contested issues in the field of intellectual property law concerns the existence, or non-existence, of patent thickets and the extent to which any such bottlenecks may be interfering with research. For decades, scholars warned that problems related to the over proliferation of patent rights would interfere with innovation. In contrast, a growing body of commentary argues that patent thickets are not a problem in modern industries. Either patent thickets do not exist, or if they do, patent thickets do not interfere with the progress of research. The rhetoric is particularly heated these days because of dramatic changes underway in patent law. Research bottlenecks, or lack thereof, are invoked either in support of or in opposition to such changes, and it is difficult to have a rational discussion when so much seems to be at stake. Stepping back from the rhetoric a bit, this piece suggests that one can sometimes indirectly observe effects, even if one cannot directly measure the extent of a phenomenon. With this in mind, the piece describes three approaches appearing in modern patent markets that are directed at mitigating the effects of patent thickets. These approaches can be described as Open Source, Open Access, and Open Transfer. From our vantage point, we may not be able to see or to measure the depth of the thicket. We can, however, observe the altered growth patterns that give us some indication of where the problems lie.

If It's Property Why No Property Tax Via slashdot, a letter in the Los Angeles Times by Dallas Weaver raises an interesting point. While propogandists for the copyight and patent mills are eager to have their exclusive grants treated as "property" they don't seem terribly interested in paying property tax. Since they've successfully managed to press the term "intellectual property" into the dictionary, why not charge them a property tax? This is a serious suggestion with serious benefits for two reasons. First, it would go a long way to solving the problem of automatic copyright and orphan works - it would force copyright holders to emerge from the shadows or give up their copyrights. Moreover, it would get around some ridiculous language in the Berne convention to the effect that "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality." It's not that you wouldn't get your rights if you didn't pay your property tax, any more than you would if you didn't pay property tax on your car. You would of course go to jail. Second, owners of houses and automobiles and the like pay taxes on their property in exchange for real government services they receive ranging from roads to police. So also with owners of "intellectual property" who receive a variety of government enforcement services - which at the current time they do not help to pay for.

At the assertion that to be patentable something must be novel we can only laugh or cry. There is an article on apple insider: James and Marguerite Driessen of Lindon, Utah are suing Apple Computer claiming they have patented the idea of a gift card where the gift is downloadable over the internet. The actual patent 7003500 - which took six years to issue for some reason - is vastly worse than that. They have patented the "idea" of "selling of merchandise or media content on the Internet [using] at least one in-person contact with the buyer." I want to emphasize: this patent was approved by the U.S. Patent Office.

To what extent does research now focus on "what can we patent?" and not on "how do we cure X?"?