Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review
Is there no end to this madness? jc August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer *Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review* On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system. Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high profile journals must buy a package including other publications. Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill. […] Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-o...
E purtroppo i confronti tra "innovazione" (whatever that means...) in Europa e negli Stati Uniti si fa spesso (anche) sulla base del numero di brevetti rilasciati, ragion per cui l'Europa pare sempre soffrire di chissà quali carenze di cervelli (e non è solo una questione di immagine, questi numeri sono anche usati in altre negoziazioni e tendono a porci in posizioni di svantaggio.) On Thursday, September 1, 2016, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it> wrote:
Is there no end to this madness? jc
August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer
*Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review*
On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system.
Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high profile journals must buy a package including other publications. Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill.
[…]
Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month- elsevier-patents-online-peer-review
-- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
Piccolo commento su brevetti e innovazione, ma in campo software: due anni fa feci una ricerca tra grandi aziende tedesche in campo automotive/avionics/automation (Lufthansa, Siemens, Bosch, ecc ….) sul trasferimento tecnologico in ambito software, da cui scaturì che i brevetti erano l’ultima cosa che quelle aziende usassero per fare trasferimento tecnologico. La ricerca è disponibile qui: http://porto.polito.it/2626809/1/2015_esem_tt.pdf <http://porto.polito.it/2626809/1/2015_esem_tt.pdf> - Antonio
On 01 Sep 2016, at 21:28, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
E purtroppo i confronti tra "innovazione" (whatever that means...) in Europa e negli Stati Uniti si fa spesso (anche) sulla base del numero di brevetti rilasciati, ragion per cui l'Europa pare sempre soffrire di chissà quali carenze di cervelli (e non è solo una questione di immagine, questi numeri sono anche usati in altre negoziazioni e tendono a porci in posizioni di svantaggio.)
On Thursday, September 1, 2016, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it <mailto:demartin@polito.it>> wrote: Is there no end to this madness? jc
August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer
Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review
On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system.
Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high profile journals must buy a package including other publications. Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill.
[…]
Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-o... <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-o...>
--
-- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso <https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro> _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>
Confesso di non avere avuto banda passante a sufficienza per lavorare a emendamenti del brutto pdl cyber bullismo per come sta per arrivare in aula alla Camera. Il 12 è la scadenza per emendamenti. Per caso qualcuno ha emendamenti da proporre ? Ciao!, s.
participants (4)
-
Andrea Glorioso -
Antonio Vetrò -
J.C. DE MARTIN -
Stefano Quintarelli