{"id":2970,"date":"2016-03-10T09:18:13","date_gmt":"2016-03-10T13:18:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cpip.gmu.edu\/?p=2970"},"modified":"2026-05-13T19:36:48","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T19:36:48","slug":"no-consensus-that-broad-patent-reform-is-necessary-or-helpful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2016\/03\/10\/no-consensus-that-broad-patent-reform-is-necessary-or-helpful\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] No Consensus That Broad Patent \u2018Reform\u2019 is Necessary or Helpful"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s a brief excerpt of an op-ed by Adam Mossoff<\/a> & Devlin Hartline<\/a> that was published in The Hill:<\/em><\/p>\n

Two recent op-eds published in The Hill<\/em> argue that broad patent legislation\u2014misleadingly labeled \u201creform\u201d\u2014is needed because the U.S. patent system is fundamentally broken. In the first, Timothy Lee contends<\/a> that opponents \u201ccannot with a straight face\u201d argue that we don\u2019t need wide-sweeping changes to our patent system. In the second, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine maintain<\/a> that there is \u201cconsensus among academic researchers\u201d that the system is \u201cfailing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both op-eds suggest that there are no principled reasons, whether legal or economic, to object to the overhaul of the patent system included in the Innovation Act<\/a>. Both op-eds are wrong.<\/p>\n

To read the rest of this op-ed, please visit The Hill<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s a brief excerpt of an op-ed by Adam Mossoff & Devlin Hartline that was published in The Hill: Two recent op-eds published in The Hill argue that broad patent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3627,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,30,34,35,1],"tags":[83,233,400,427,702,703,956,1085,1091,1101,1106,1409,1452,1466,1490],"class_list":["post-2970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-innovation-2","category-inventors","category-legislation","category-patent-law","category-uncategorized","tag-adam-mossoff","tag-broken-patent-system","tag-david-levine","tag-devlin-hartline","tag-innovation","tag-innovation-act","tag-michele-boldrin","tag-patent-litigation-2","tag-patent-reform","tag-patent-troll","tag-patents","tag-strong-patents-act","tag-the-hill","tag-timothy-lee","tag-trol-act"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3627"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2970"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15877,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions\/15877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}