ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity"
m (==See also== * Studies on economics and innovation) |
m (→Interesting parts: syntax) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
"Opportunity 3", according to pages 6 and 7, say: | "Opportunity 3", according to pages 6 and 7, say: | ||
| − | :"...one could be | + | :"...one could be tempted to consider ever stricter IP protection regimes to provide ever more stimuli for innovation. |
| − | tempted to consider ever stricter IP protection regimes to provide | ||
| − | ever more stimuli for innovation. | ||
| − | :"This conclusion is wrong, however. A prime example is patents on | + | :"This conclusion is wrong, however. A prime example is patents on software, which might at first sight be seen as a logical expansion of the classic technology patent. But creating software differs markedly from creating machinery and the like... |
| − | software, which might at first sight be seen as a logical expansion of | ||
| − | the classic technology patent. But creating software differs markedly | ||
| − | from creating machinery and the like... | ||
Their recommendation to the Germany government on this are: | Their recommendation to the Germany government on this are: | ||
Revision as of 13:33, 24 February 2009
Deutsche Bank Research, in June 2004, published the report Innovation in Germany, Windows of opportunity.
Interesting parts
"Opportunity 3", according to pages 6 and 7, say:
- "...one could be tempted to consider ever stricter IP protection regimes to provide ever more stimuli for innovation.
- "This conclusion is wrong, however. A prime example is patents on software, which might at first sight be seen as a logical expansion of the classic technology patent. But creating software differs markedly from creating machinery and the like...
Their recommendation to the Germany government on this are:
- "Measures to take. The German government is among the tentative critics of the EU software patent bill. This position should be bolstered, by (1) putting forward academic evidence and (2) making SMEs’ concerns heard. SMEs are crucial providers of pathbreaking innovations, but would be most adversely affected by patentability. The majority of them is deterred by the costs of patenting themselves, but would have to navigate around software patent portfolios of large corporations.
