The evaluation of various innovation fields of an emerging technology as well as their potential impact on a certain market, region, industry, or target group is a part of an innovation manager's day-to-day business. Such evaluations are usually based on a combination of information from a variety of data sources, which are used to decide whether to invest in the advancement or adoption of a technology. With the aim of supporting this decision-making process, we combine different data sources to identify and evaluate innovation fields by semantically bridging trend and patent data. We apply our method in the context of blockchain technology, show how trend data can be used and operationalized to identify innovation fields, and illustrate how patent data can be used to evaluate these innovation fields. Our data reveals that trend and patent data complement each other and that hybrid or multihybrid approaches to evaluate a technology's development lead to additional insights for the systemic anticipation of future perspectives as well as research pathways of innovation fields.
Sohee Kim, Sejun Yoon, Nagarajan Raghavan, Nguyen-Truong Le · 5 authors
The blockchain is a technology with high growth potential that increases social benefits by streamlining procedures, reducing costs, and innovating the way we work. Considering the growth potential of blockchain technologies, countries around the world are attempting to graft into various fields such as finance, logistics, and healthcare, and actively promoting technology development. Tracing and analyzing the developmental trajectories of blockchain technology can give great insight for R&D direction and strategies. We developed an improved knowledge persistence-based main path approach to identify technological trajectories of the blockchain technology. In addition, future technological directions for each sub-technology under blockchain technology were identified by the knowledge unconventionality metric. The results show that the blockchain technology can be divided into five sub-technologies, and each sub-technology has evolved with high technological interactions among other sub-technologies. Based on the last knowledge streams of the main paths, this paper suggests potential future directions for each sub-technology in the blockchain technology.
Blockchain is considered to be a general-purpose technology (GPT) by many scholars. However, previous studies offer no proof that Blockchain is a GPT. Thus, approximately 2500 Blockchain-related patent data are investigated by deploying the mixed-method approach, using patentometrics with the support of semi-structured interviews conducted with Blockchain experts. This article investigates six main GPT indicators: pervasiveness, improvement, spawning, prevalence, reallocation of resources, and inclusive democratization. Overall, the results demonstrate that Blockchain has not yet become a GPT, though it already shows some GPT characteristics. There are six specific findings: 1) Blockchain shows pervasive characteristics; 2) Blockchain is capable of further improvement; 3) Blockchain facilitates and encourages the creation of innovations; 4) several countries with strong R&D capabilities, particularly China and the United States, are showing the prevalence of Blockchain technology; 5) the Blockchain landscape is witnessing greater participation of âyoungerâ companies; and 6) Blockchain is strongly related to the Information and Communication Technology domain with the potential of inclusivity and democratization. China and the United States have the potential to influence the future development of Blockchain technology. This article is assumed to be of great interest to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, such as scholars and policymakers.
Abstract Taking Venezuelaâs complaint against the United States at the World Trade Organisation (âWTOâ) as the inflection point, this Article will explore whether a characterisation of cryptocurrencies as a âcurrencyâ (similar to a fiat currency) would ensure that cryptocurrencies are not covered by WTO disciplines on goods and services. Despite customary international law principles such as ius cudendae monetae and the persuasive argument that a âcurrencyâ is neither a good or service â the Article answers this question in the negative. It will divide issues that can arise during such a WTO dispute into three categories: threshold, substantive and compliance issues. Threshold issues would involve interpretative challenges to determine whether the General Agreement on Trade in Services (âGATSâ) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (âGATTâ) regulate cryptocurrencies. Since the GATS Schedule of Commitments has historically been interpreted in a technologically neutral manner, identifying cryptocurrencies as a âserviceâ may not prove to be insurmountable. However, the claim that cryptocurrencies are barter goods that will be subject to disciplines of the GATT deserves critical scrutiny â more so because the GATT regulates tangible products and contains specific provisions relating to balance-of-payments. The Article also undertakes a theoretical analysis of the heterodoxical nature of the cryptocurrency to evaluate whether it can be classified as a âsecurityâ within the meaning of the GATSâ Annex on Financial Services. These threshold issues are, however, the tip of the iceberg. Once a WTO Panel commences its analysis, the substantive issues for consideration would involve determining whether a unique product such as cryptocurrencies has a âlike productâ in the respondent Memberâs market. Further, the Panelâs analysis would involve a consideration relating to âgeneral exceptionsâ under Article XIV, GATS or Article XX, GATT which would entail an examination of whether the measure was necessary to achieve, amongst other regulatory objectives, either compliance with domestic regulations or the maintenance of public order. If the measure adversely impacting cryptocurrencies is determined to be WTO-inconsistent, issues of compliance and suspension of concessions are imminent. WTO Panels have historically estimated the . quantum of suspensions of concessions by determining the trade volumes affected by the WTO-inconsistent measure and factoring it for a future time period. The decentralised nature of the distributed ledger technology underlying cryptocurrencies complicates any country-specific quantification of the impact on trade volumes of cryptocurrencies affected by the WTO inconsistent measure. Accordingly, determining suspensions of concessions in relation to cryptocurrencies would require significant judicial innovation by the arbitrator. Adjudicating Cryptocurrencies at the WTO: Potential Threshold and Substantive Issues.
Milad Dehghani, Atefeh Mashatan, Ryan William Kennedy
Purpose Understanding a technologyâs patent landscape, including patent strategies, helps organizations position themselves regarding their innovation and provides insight about a technologyâs future direction. This study aims to provide an overview of the blockchain technology patenting trends and outlines an exploratory framework of patenting strategies for blockchain. Design/methodology/approach A total of 3,234 registered patents are analyzed to determine the geographical distribution and identify key actors patenting around the globe. In addition, an empirical study consisting of multiple case studies in the form of ten in-depth interviews with owners/managers of organizations based in North America was conducted to understand organizationsâ strategies for patenting the blockchain technology. Findings Several novel insights regarding the strategies are used for blockchain technology patenting. For example, the existence of strong anti-patent sentiment which results in a lack of patenting by start-up organizations or has led to a form of open source patenting strategy. Larger organizations appear to be patenting defensively, and small to medium organizations are primarily patenting to defend their competitive advantage. Practical implications Start-up organizations harboring anti-patent sentiment should consider the open-source patenting strategy to ensure that the collaborative innovation network can continue. They should also consider collaborating with other actors within the network to have a competitive position in the market. Originality/value To the authorsâ knowledge, this paper is the first to conduct an empirical study with organizations currently using the blockchain technology to understand patenting strategies used for blockchain.
This study investigates the role and functionality of special nucleotide sequences (DNA signatures) to detect the presence of an organism and to distinguish it from all others. After highlighting vulnerabilities of the prevalent DNA signature paradigm for the identification of agricultural genetically modified (GM) organisms it will be argued that these so-called signatures really are no signatures at all - when compared to the notion of traditional (handwritten) signatures and their generalizations in the modern (digital) world. It is suggested that a recent contamination event of an unauthorized GM Bacillus subtilis strain (Paracchini et al. (2017)) in Europe could have been - or the same way could be - the consequence of exploiting gaps of prevailing DNA signatures. Moreover, a recent study (Mueller (2019)) proposes that such DNA signatures may intentionally be exploited to support the counterfeiting or even weaponization of GM organisms (GMOs). These concerns mandate a re-conceptualization of how DNA signatures need to be realized. After identifying central issues of the new vulnerabilities and overlying them with practical challenges that bio-cyber hackers would be facing, recommendations are made how DNA signatures may be enhanced. To overcome the core problem of signature transferability in bioengineered mediums, it is necessary that the identifier needs to remain secret during the entire verification process. On the other hand, however, the goal of DNA signatures is to enable public verifiability, leading to a paradoxical dilemma. It is shown that this can be addressed with ideas that underlie special cryptographic signatures, in particular those of âzero-knowledgeâ and âinvisibility.â This means more than mere signature hiding, but relies on a knowledge-based proof and differentiation of a secret (here, as assigned to specific clones) which can be realized without explicit demonstration of that secret. A reconceptualization of these principles can be used in form of a combined (digital and physical) method to establish confidentiality and prevent un-impersonation of the manufacturer. As a result, this helps mitigate the circulation of possibly hazardous GMO counterfeits and also addresses the situation whereby attackers try to blame producers for deliberately implanting illicit adulterations hidden within authorized GMOs.
Blockchains are at the source of numerous innovations, be it in the insurance, the financial or the distribution sector, many of which are very promising. However, from the moment innovative technologies appear the issue of the stimulation of their development arises. Most of the time, blockchain-related innovations are developed in an open-source or free software framework. Nevertheless, more and more patents have been filed on blockchain applications. Hence, how are the philosophies driving blockchain communities and intellectual property compatible? Are there any risks that arise from the filing of patents on the developments of blockchain-based technologies and business methods? And finally, are blockhains going to revolutionalize the intellectual property system itself? These are the issues that the present chapter attempts to deal with.
Ibrahim Alnafrah, Elena Bogdanova, Tatiana Maximova
The aim of the study is to introduce a new application of machine-learning techniques (text mining, clustering and classification) and the blockchain technology within the intellectual property rights (IPRs) management system. Using such machine-learning techniques facilitates the management process of intellectual properties (IPs) and makes it more efficient. Additionally, using the blockchain technology for IPRs management purposes enables all stakeholders to utilise the extracted data of the IP objects from the blockchain network. In this study, a text-mining technique was used to identify the two types of IP documents based on specific categories, namely, patent and trademark. In order to achieve this objective, a range of machine-learning techniques was used for 5,500 patent documents and 400 trademark documents. The results of the logistic regression model showed a high level of prediction accuracy of document type at the pre-registration stage on the blockchain network. This high level of prediction accuracy demonstrates that using machine-learning and text-mining techniques will facilitate the IPRs management system. This new application of specific machine-learning techniques in the IPRs management process contributes essentially to solving the problem in a conventional IPRs system associated with rights protection and data availability.
It is widely recognized that we are in rapid transition to the so-called fourth industrial revolution, a world of digitalization and mass interconnectedness enabled by a plethora of emergent powerful technologies including artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things (IoT), and distributed ledgers (DLT). A key element of this ârevolutionâ is the move to digital manufacturing. While undoubtedly exciting, this transition presents challenges to policymakers, industry, and societal stakeholders alike. One such challenge is defining an optimum level for any market intervention measure(s), such that a balance is struck between ensuring a pro-industrial and economic innovation-friendly approach and guaranteeing adequate levels of consumer-focused protection. Standardization can be leveraged as one element of interventionary policy designed to help strike the required balance, both in its well-proven bottom-up and industry-led voluntary application and as a tool to support implementation of regulations. With a focus on digital transformation, this chapter will analyze the readiness of the current standardization system to support this significant transition focusing on strengths and challenges to be addressed from the perspective of industry, policymakers, and standards-setting organizations.
This paper examines how circular economics addresses and uses smart technology, and demonstrates the lack of consideration given to ownership issues in such contexts. The extent to which circular economic ideals require controlling goods down-stream will be exposed. Following this is an analysis of the ramifications of smart technology, illustrated with recent examples of control through smart technology. This leads to a critique of the US Supreme Courtâs recent decision on patent exhaustion Impression Products v Lexmark alongside the CJEUâs decision in UsedSoft on copyright, addressing implications for contracting practices. The article concludes by urging close comparison of claimed benefits arising from circular economic approaches to smart technology with the potential costs of control (or lack thereof) of novel technologies.
Purwono Purwono, Alfian Maâarif, Wahyu Rahmaniar, Qazi Mazhar ul Haq · 6 authors
Blockchain technology has a promising future in a number of industries and enterprises. Formerly connected to virtual currency like Bitcoin, blockchain has evolved into a versatile technology with many applications. In the upcoming years, it is predicted that blockchain will revolutionize a variety of industries, including banking, supply chain management, healthcare, voting systems, and more. The future of blockchain technology depends critically on its ability to increase security and transparency. By providing a decentralized and unchangeable record, eliminating the need for middlemen, and boosting participant confidence, blockchain promotes secure and traceable transactions. This transparency has the potential to transform whole industries by reducing fraud, streamlining processes, and increasing output. Blockchain also has the power to change financial systems. Blockchain-based smart contracts facilitate faster, more efficient transactions by automating and enforcing contractual agreements without the need for middlemen. By enabling speedier cross-border transactions, reducing costs, and boosting financial inclusion, tokenization and blockchain-based digital currencies have the potential to overturn conventional banking institutions. Blockchainâs key attributes, including decentralization, transparency, immutability, and security, make it a desirable choice for a range of organizations. Cross-border payments, trade finance, and smart contracts are just a few of the financial sector processes that blockchain technology has the potential to enhance and automate, lowering costs and increasing productivity. Additionally, the tamper-resistance of blockchain technology can boost transaction security and reliability, allowing for a wider use in traditional financial institutions. Outside of the financial industry, blockchain technology has a lot of promise, particularly in industries like supply chain management, healthcare, energy, intellectual property, and governance. By enabling transparent and traceable transactions, blockchain may improve supply chain efficiency, ensure product authenticity, and boost customer trust. By facilitating the secure exchange of patient data and research data, the decentralized nature of blockchain technology can enhance data security, interoperability, and privacy in the healthcare sector. A more decentralized and sustainable energy ecosystem may be supported by blockchain technology through peer-to-peer energy exchange, grid management, and monitoring of renewable energy certificates in the energy sector. Additionally, blockchain technology has the potential to transform decentralized governance structures, voting procedures, intellectual property rights, and digital identity management. By allowing people to own and manage their digital identities, blockchain can enhance privacy and reduce identity theft. Blockchain-based voting systems can offer transparency, security, and verifiability, thereby increasing voter turnout and public trust in democratic institutions. Blockchain can also enable the secure and transparent management of intellectual property rights, fostering author credit and just compensation.
This chapter provides a legal framework for deciding when a geographical indication (GI) has crossed over the line into generic usage, as the common name for a type of product (such as cheddar cheese). Genericide is a process and one that is highly controversial. While Art 24.6 of TRIPS has emerged as the international reference point, it is remarkably underdeveloped. The question of whether a designation has become the âcommon nameâ for a type of product requires an empirically informed answer. However, when setting out the test for genericide, there are opportunities for normative inflections to be introduced.
Section 2 sets out the history of this controversial area and the commercial stakes which influence legal determinations. Section 3 identifies the four main structural issues to be addressed (which regime to opt for; who bears the burden of proof; what is the threshold or tipping point for genericide; and how the factors should interact). Section 4 proceeds to analyse the categories of evidence, drawing on comparative experiences with such categories in operation. Here the perception of the target audience (consumers or the general public, as informed by trade and expert opinion) must be gauged against the contextual backdrop of market conditions, legislative or bureaucratic classifications of the term and the actions of the rights holder. Section 5 concludes with a review of the options for preventing generic use in sui generis GI regimes, while also suggesting the avenues for reviving terms that were formerly GIs but have been declared generic. The comparative analysis is offered as a practical resource for decision makers, while also serving as a reminder that the overarching enquiry should remain focused on the public perception of the term, as opposed to the competing commercial interests at stake.
This post is an excerpt from my dissertation which can be found here via figshare. Note: The contained information pertains strictly to the US legal system, and is based on information I (Anthony Salvagno) alone researched. I am in no way a lawyer and offer no legal advice, but thought it would be foolish to not share basic copyright and patent law policy for scientific consideration. One of the biggest arguments I hear against open research is the fear about not being able to protect your intellectual property, also known as the fear of being scooped. The biggest oversight in that argument is that IP violations occur in traditional scientific culture both accidentally and maliciously. In an open environment, however, there is a greater risk of attracting this behavior if only because scientific research is made publicly available. With that said, there is nothing about being open that is any more inviting of harmful activity than in the traditional system. In fact, because of the current US legal system, being open may be more beneficial to protecting scientific information. With regards to the US legal system, there are two primary protections available to scientists: (1) copyright law would protect recorded scientific information, for example data and ideas, while (2) patent law would protect scientific processes, production, procedures, etc. Despite what is commonly believed, in no way does open notebook science prevent either protection from applying to scientific intellectual property. Open notebook science can actually stake your claim on IP and provide immediate protection. For patent law, patent protection is granted for one year once a work is publicly disclosed. If a patent is not filed, the IP becomes public domain and a patent can never be filed. In the case of copyright law, copyright applies from the moment of fixation (the moment scientific information is documented). In both cases, open notebook science can be used either as a defensive tactic to protect IP, or as an offensive tactic to prevent others from profiting from scientific IP. Copyright Law Copyright law is essentially very simple, and has been made increasingly simple since it was originally expanded upon in the US Constitution. The most recent addendum to this statute came about in the 1976 Copyright Act, which defined rights to copyright holders (exclusive rights), how copyright is achieved, and even what does/does not constitute infringement (fair use). While the law is simple in principle, copyright infringement is not necessarily black and white. In some instances it is questionable as to what is even copyrightable. In others, the matter of fair use is debatable. Even when there is infringement, it can be tough to prove because there are varying degrees of copying or âborrowing.â The bare-essential rules of copyright law can be seen in Table 1: Copyright is applied immediately from the moment any work is tangibly recorded, both publicly and privately. To be protected a work needs to be original (not novel) and there needs to be a minimum element of creativity (known as expression). The exclusive rights provided to copyright holders are reproduction, distribution, derivation, performance, and display. Copyright infringement is a federal offense! Even though copyright is applied immediately, in order to file suit for infringement a copyright needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office. A copyright is not violated if it has been determined that the infringer has a fair use of the material. Fair use is a broad definition and is only created as a defense in infringement suits. Table 1: Bare-essentials of copyright law. Rule 2 from Table 1 may reveal that copyright law doesnât apply to most of science intellectual property, because it is fact based and process driven. Patent law was developed for this very reason. While there are no statutes against having dual protection in the form of patents and copyrights, it is not likely to receive copyright protection if there is patent protection since the copyright lasts much longer than the patent. But thatâs not to say none of science is copyrightable. In fact, journal articles are in fact copyrighted. It can be interpreted that there is creative expression in organizing scientific discoveries (which are fact based) and that would make them copyrightable. Journals hold the copyrights for publications and have exclusive right to copy and distribute the articles any any material contained within. And there are cases where theyâve tried to enforce it. In that link, the author tries to distribute (via publishing in her blog) figures from a publication and receives a cease and desist letter. Unfortunately it will never be known if there was a violation because the infringement never went to trial. She made an argument for fair use, which probably has some grounds, but skirted around the issue by recreating the figures using the original data (which is NOT copyrightable), thus making her own original figures which are therefore copyrightable. There is a chance that she has no fair use argument since her reuse (even through attribution) is a clear violation of distribution rights and can be viewed as falling within the same scope of the original publication. In the case of publications, scientists waive their copyright upon submission and acceptance for publication and dissemination, and grant that copyright to the journal. Not all scientific output is formatted for publication, or released at all. In that case, it would greatly benefit scientists to publish their figures via an open notebook to provide copyright protection for their research (if that is in fact the goal). With regards to the traditional science system, scientists are offered protection from the moment they record their data and create figures based on that data. They are even protected at conferences where they present their research (either via an oral or poster format). This is specifically useful in the case of scientific scooping, which isnât as rampant as we make it out to be but is still a major fear in the community. If there is a case of potential copyright infringement, you have the right to file suit (once you apply for copyright). If you can prove there was access to your research findings and there is substantial copying you may even win your case. If you are an open scientist, in that you publish your research findings online before peer reviewed publication, you may be in an even better position. You are granted the same rights as a traditional scientist. In the open case, however, the proof of access is much easier to demonstrate since a simple Google search can turn up your findings. The burden is then that you prove there is evidence of copying, which is hard enough as it is. Because of all the possible interpretations of copyright application to science, I highly advocate the use of the Creative Commons licenses. The CC0 (public domain), CC-BY (use with attribution), and CC-BY-SA (use with attribution and share alike) afford the copyright owner the ability to share their research findings with the community and in turn allow the community to share, use, and reuse those findings without fear of retaliation. It is incredibly important to note that using the CC licenses (with the exception of the CC0) does NOT waive all exclusive rights as a copyright holder. They allow you to waive your rights as long as the reuser of the original work attributes, shares, etc (per terms of the license) in turn. If those stipulations are infringed, you are free to take action. In fact, there is legal precedence of such action. The licenses provide a means for others to use information and data without worrying about moral ambiguities, legal issues, and in turn promote a culture of sharing and attribution. With the CC licenses there will be more societal pressure to do the right thing. When credibility is involved social pressure can work wonders. For more information, please refer to the US Copyright Office website. Patent Law The America Invents Act was initiated in 2011 and institutes some new changes to patent law. The newest inclusion to the law is that now patents are given based on a first-to-file system, whereas previously they were given through a first-to-invent system. This change was implemented on March 16, 2013 as a way to conform to international policy, but also to decrease the burden of the US Patent Office in identifying first-inventor which can be extremely complicated and arduous. In a first-to-file system, a patent will be granted to the first person to file a patent for a given invention. While the system is as simple as it sounds, it tends to give advantages to larger entities with the resources and efficiency to file patents for every invention conceived. It is outside the scope of this writing to argue the merits of a first-to-file or first-to-invent system, but this is mentioned because there are a couple of workarounds to the first-to-file mandate. The first is through the filing of a provisional application, and the second is through public disclosure. In both cases, there is a one-year grace period under which a patent must be filed lest it become public domain. The provisional application is a low cost option that grants an inventor protection from competitive patent filings. The fee is $125 for small entity inventors, such as individuals, and $250 for large entities like corporations. The intellectual property remains a secret during the provisional period until patent. Public disclosure is a free alternative to the provisional patent, in the sense that there is nothing to file with the patent office. With this method, the details of an invention become public information, but no competitor may file a patent. Scientifically speaking, patentable items include processes, designs, and technology of all sort (although computer programs are hard to patent or copyright). It is usually advantageous to maintain secrecy when dealing with intellectual property, and this culture is especially prevalent in science. As such many universities and institutions have legal services that aid scientists in patent filings. In an effort to maintain confidentiality, it is highly suggested by these services to file provisional applications for all inventions. Much like copyright, the ultimate goal of a patent is to prevent competitors from stealing and reproducing a work without the inventor benefitting. It is little known fact that patents become public information after filing, generally 18 months after the earliest filing date. It is entirely possible for competitors to analyze a patent and create a ânon-obviousâderivation of the work that can then be patented. In this scenario the benefit of the patent application is essentially lost. Open notebook science can be a major benefit to the new patent process. Since it does cost money to file a provisional application, ONS (or other web disclosure) would provide a free alternative to the provisional application. The only difference between the two routes is that through ONS, the patent is immediately public information, while the provisional application maintains invention secrecy. Because the patent will eventually be public domain, the incentive to innovate is delayed a bit through the provisional process. While ONS publicly discloses a scientific creation and encourages potential modification, it does not promote/encourage stealing the idea. Scientists are still protected from patent infringement. Now, if a competitor sees the notebook entries and makes non-obvious changes to the idea, then they can be granted a new patent, if filed. That is no different from how the patent process currently operates, it simply speeds up the process. Filing a provision for every idea ever produced and paying $125 every time is a waste of money and resources. It is highly unlikely that every idea/invention will come to fruition. It also gives the US patent office a lot of unnecessary paperwork, and could actually stifle innovation and creativity. ONS would in turn allow a researcher to disseminate their ideas and protect the best ones for the original creator. Resources could be better used to fight for the best ideas and allow others to develop the ideas that wonât necessarily get the same level of attention or ever be produced. In this way ONS could be used as a defensive tactic to protect a scientist from losing his/her best ideas. It is also possible for open notebook science to be used as an offensive tactic. In this maneuver, the documentation of ideas born from discussions or other endeavors creates prior art (which is essentially the same as public disclosure). An invention disclosed in prior art is exempt from patent protection. So in the case of public disclosure via ONS inventions would be blocked from filing for patent. Hypothetically, a researcher could publish any and all ideas, techniques, or technologies and prevent all competitors (and peers) from filing for patent. In the interest of sharing research information, open notebook science may be the best protection against impediments in the scientific process.
The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claimsânamely, intent to deceive the publicâby a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can be found in courts' historical treatment of the false-marking statute, the legislative history and policy rationales underlying § 292, and analogous legal contexts. More crucially, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates a higher burden of proof to protect the important interests at stake for false-marking defendants.
The Federal Trade Commission's 2003 innovation report revealed an interesting fact: the pharmaceutical industry is largely satisfied with today's patent system while the electronics, software and Internet industries are not. This article suggests that a difference in governing law accounts for the difference in satisfaction. The federal Food and Drug Act requires pharmaceutical inventions to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold. It thus requires completion of the entire inventive process for pharmaceuticals. Our patent system, however, has no analogous requirement for the other fields. In them, applicants may stake a claim to rivals' later inventive effort after completing only the very first step - conceptualizing - of a lengthy inventive process. The result is patents on abstractions that hold up real inventors, as in Blackberry, eBay and countless other cases to come. Unfortunately, developments in biotechnology, including patenting gene segments, suggest that the biotech industry may be closing the gap in early-stage patenting. This article suggests two ways to improve our patent system and reduce the difference in industry satisfaction. The first is to abolish the doctrine of constructive reduction to practice. A statutory amendment would require inventors, before receiving a patent, to invest reasonably in making, building, testing or at least simulating something concrete, in order both to demonstrate feasibility and to attract real seed capital. A second amendment would convert Section 103's nonobviousness criterion from an abstract test of cognitive difficulty to an economically meaningful test. The new test would encourage review of concrete economic factors such as investment of risk capital, real progress in bringing an invention to market, the assumption of technological risk, i.e., risk of total failure for nonmarket reasons, and a proven need for protection from free riders. Unlike current Section 103, the new test would consider how the invention was made and would permit hindsight. It would do so on the theory that patents protect not cognitive brilliance, but investment of risk capital in the entire process of invention, in which conceptualization is only a first step. The test would also recognize that investment, concrete progress, and risk are susceptible to proof in retrospect. The article outlines how, if adopted, these changes could help rationalize our patent system economically and eliminate the difference in satisfaction between pharmaceuticals and other fields of industry, whose own participants now see patents as impeding progress as often as promoting it.