You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items

  • Author or Editor: Mark A. Lemley x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Mark A. Lemley

You do not have access to this content

Mark A Lemley and Robin Feldman

Traditional justifications for patents are all based on direct or indirect contribution to the creation of new products. Patents serve the social interest if they provide not just invention, but innovation the world would not otherwise have. Non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) as well as product-producing companies can sometimes provide such innovation, either directly, through working the patent or transferring technology to others who do, or indirectly, when others copy the patented innovation. The available evidence suggests, however, that patent licensing demands and lawsuits from NPEs are normally not cases that involve any of these activities. Some scholars have argued that patents can be valuable even without technology transfer because the ability to exclude others from the market may drive commercialization that would not otherwise occur. We demonstrate that even if various commercialization theories can sometimes justify patent protection, they cannot justify most NPE lawsuits or licensing demands.

You do not have access to this content

Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley

You do not have access to this content

Stacey L. Dogan and Mark A. Lemley

Twenty years have passed since William Landes and Richard Posner wrote their classic economic defense of trademark laws. Under Landes and Posner's "search costs" theory, trademarks have value because they reduce consumer search costs and thus promote overall efficiency in the economy.