Speaker(s): Gavin Clarkson (HBS/Harvard
Law School)
Title:
Abstract
While antitrust and intellectual property seemed to be in tension for most
of the 20th century, with patent pooling often facing the brunt of antitrust
enforcement, recent developments indicate that these two areas of law can be
aligned so as to foster innovation rather than stifle it. The 1995
Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, jointly issued by the
U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, formally
established the possibility that collective ownership structures for
intellectual assets, including patent pools, could be pro-competitive in certain
circumstances. The 1995 Guidelines provide a clear and objective
indication of what an appropriate licensing structure for a patent pool would
be.
Much of the evaluation of patent pool membership is quite subjective, however,
which still leaves a high level of uncertainty for potential pool participants.
Given the high cost of defending an antitrust enforcement action and the
extremely harsh penalties for losing at trial, patent pool formation is likely
to be less frequent than the optimal level needed for the maximization of
innovative activity in a number of industries. This paper proposes a theoretical
set of objective criteria for the evaluation of patent pools, based on a
combination of network analytic measures and statistical natural language
processing techniques, and suggests that such criteria might be incorporated
into antitrust analysis so as to create a rebuttable presumption of validity for
certain types of patent pools. With objectively determinable criteria for
patent pool formation, those firms attempting to hack their way through the
patent thicket can proceed in clearing blocking patent positions by forming
collective ownership structures without worrying excessively about the
ambiguities of antitrust enforcement.