Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property
Show Less

Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property

Concepts, Actors and Practices from the Past to the Present

Edited by Stathis Arapostathis and Graham Dutfield

The book links the practices and regimes of the past with those of contemporary and emerging forms, covering the mid-19th century to the present. The contributors are noted scholars from various disciplines including history of science and technology, intellectual property law, and innovation studies. The chapters offer original perspectives on how proprietary regimes in knowledge production processes have developed as a socio-political phenomenon of modernity, as well as providing an analysis of the way individuals, institutions and techno-sciences interact within this culture.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: The photographic paper that made Leo Baekeland’s reputation: Entrepreneurial incentives for not patenting

Concepts, Actors and Practices from the Past to the Present

Joris Mercelis


Recent research indicates that only a remarkably small share of inventions may ever have been patented, even after the start of the ‘pro-patent era’ around 1980 (cf. Granstrand, 1999: 4–8; Moser, 2011; Fontana et al., 2011). A closer look at inventors’ motives for not patenting therefore seems timely. For the sake of clarity, a distinction will be drawn between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ motivations that have been discussed in earlier studies. Perhaps the most straightforward examples of the former – that is, not acquiring patents out of necessity rather than choice – have stemmed from restrictions regarding patentable subject matter. Software and business method patents, for instance, were rarely allowed before the 1980s; not to speak of the even more controversial extension of patentability into the realm of living organisms. Additionally, only inventions that were deemed sufficiently novel, unobvious and industrially useful have typically qualified for patent protection. As with the patentable subject matter requirement, these criteria of patentability have been open to interpretation. For example, patent examiners’ and judges’ ‘liberality’ in evaluating their fulfilment has evolved over time, depending, among other things, on shifting assessments as to whether or not inventions held to have almost automatically ‘arisen’ from a given set of circumstances (for example, earlier scientific discoveries, systematic experimentation in large industrial research laboratories and/or a strong economic demand) deserved being patent-protected (Dutfield, 2009: 6–7; Israel, 2006; MacLeod, 2007: chapter 9; Post, 1976; Owens, 1991; Seckelmann, 2006: 5–6). Perhaps more compelling are cases in which innovators who positively assessed their chances of being granted intellectual property (IP) protection nevertheless did not submit patent applications.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.