chapter 4 - innovation without patents
TRANSCRIPT
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 1/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
Chapter 4: Innovation Without Patents
As a matter of theory, intellectual monopoly appears unnecessary.
As a matter of fact, e have seen numerous e!amples shoing the
frenetic pace of creation in the a"sence of copyright. As the theorysuggests, creations such as literature, music, movies, and nes
thrive in the a"sence of copyright. #o perhaps copyright is not such
a good idea. $oever, hile e may hope to live lives free of
"oredom in the a"sence of intellectual monopoly % hat a"out
invention, the driving force of economic groth and prosperity
'ould e "enefit from all of the marvelous machines, drugs and
ideas e are surrounded ith if not for the "eneficent force of patent
la Can e ris( the foundation of our prosperity and groth "y
eliminating patents )uess hat % e are going to argue that
ithout patents e ould have more, not less, marvelous machinesand inventions. 'e are going to o"serve that patent la is largely
the unelcome conse*uence of competitive innovation and poor
legislation, and not the source of innovation at all.
It may not come as a shoc( to anyone that computer softare
and financial securities are scarcely the only industries in hich
patents are less than essential to innovation. In fact, most successful
industries have folloed the same pattern: no intellectual property at
the pioneering stage hen innovations come pouring in and "etter
and cheaper goods are invented ith high fre*uency+ desperate
scram"ling for the por( that intellectual property provides hen thecreative reservoir runs dry. Because this is true in every ell
esta"lished sector, from cars to electricity, from chemical and
pharmaceutical to te!tiles and computers, e ill try to ma(e the
point "y loo(ing at some unusual, less o"vious e!periences. 'e ill
sho ho innovation thrives ithout patents in sectors here
imitation is cheap and here there are a lot of fiercely competing
companies.
World Without Patent
$istorically, very fe ideas and innovations have "eenrearded ith government protected monopolies. Although the
enetians introduced limited patent protection to -accutissimi
Ingegni, apti ad excogitar et trouar varij Ingegnosi artificij in
/404, fortunately this as an e!ceptional provision. It as the
1nglish in /234 ho really pioneered patent la ith the Statue of
Monopolies. otice that at that time the euphemism of intellectual
-property had not yet "een introduced % that it as a monopoly
/
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 2/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
right and not a property right that as "eing granted as not in
*uestion. 5he Statue of Monopolies defined the "asic concept of
patents and alloed for the possi"ility of a fourteen years monopoly
provided that: -they "e not contrary to the la nor mischievous to
the state "y raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade,
or generally inconvenient.5he Statute of Anne, in /0/6, e!tended,revised and improved the la, hile also introducing copyright.
7ntil these formal las ere introduced patents and copyright ere
either none!istent, used as a form of governmental e!tortion through
the sale of economic privileges, or ere a tool for harassing
scientists and philosophers, as )alileo and many other ere forced
to learn. Insofar as the British system of patent as helpful in
inducing the industrial revolution, it is li(ely that it as the
limitation placed "y these las on the ar"itrary poer of
government to "loc( and monopoli8e innovation that as important.
After the British legislative innovations of /234 and /0/6,imitation proceeded rather sloly in the rest of 1urope: for good or
ill the transmission of ideas does ta(e time. A patent la as
enacted in 9rance in /0/+ "ecause it as "ased on the principle that
no e!amination of any (ind as re*uired it amounted to no more
than a -registry of inventions, often ith very many duplicates,
variations, and so on. It as also *uite costly to get a patent, and the
latter as declared void if the inventor tried to patent the invention
also in another country. As a conse*uence of all this, the 9rench
system did not introduce much monopoly until it as reformed in
/;44.It is only "eteen the end of the nineteenth and the
"eginning of the tentieth century that countries such as 9rance,
)ermany, Italy and #pain came to adopt fairly comprehensive
intellectual property las. By this time, innovation, the rule of la,
and the onership of ideas in these countries as idespread, and
the introduction of intellectual property las served to create private
monopolies rather than to limit the ar"itrary poer of government.
)ermany enacted a comprehensive patent la, introducing for the
first time the principle of mandatory e!amination, only in /;00.
#till, )erman patent la as mostly restricted to processes, not products+ in particular, chemical products ere not patenta"le until
much later. A num"er of significant holdouts remained until even
after the #econd 'orld 'ar for e!ample, #it8erland and the
etherlands and to a lesser e!tent Italy.
As for the 7nited #tates, the adoption of intellectual
property las started ith the <atent Act of /06, and e!tended
progressively to more and more areas of "usiness. 5he first 7.#.
3
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 3/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
patent as granted in /06 to #amuel $op(ins of <hiladelphia for
-ma(ing pot and pearl ashes, a cleaning formula used in soap
ma(ing.
=uring the last tenty>five or thirty years the -everything
should "e patented trend has set in, especially in the 7nited
#tate.1ven in the 7.#. "usiness practices and financial securitiesere not su"?ect to patent prior to /; and softare code as not
patenta"le until /;;. In most of the rest of orld they still cannot
"e patented.
5he list of industries that ere "orn and gre in the a"sence
of intellectual property protection is almost "oundless. In Italy,
pharmaceutical products and processes ere not covered "y patents
until /0;+ the same as true in #it8erland for processes until
/@4, and for products until /00. Agricultural seeds and plant
varieties could not "e patented in the 7nited #tates until /06, and
they still cannot "e in most of the orld. All (inds of -"asicscience from mathematics to physics and even economics, "ut no
longer finance cannot "e patented. #imultaneously, the copyright
on scientific articles enriches a handful of encroached and
inefficient pu"lishers instead of the scholars ho rote the articles.
'e are getting personal, so let us appeal to a less partial
authority. 'hile a minority among economists, e are not alone in
noticing these facts+ )eorge #tigler, riting in /@2, cites a num"er
of e!amples of thriving innovations under competition:
When the new industry did not have such barriers patentsand other contrived restrictions on entry!, there were an
eager host of new firms " even in the face of the greatest
uncertainties. #ne may cite automobiles, fro$en foods,
various electrical appliances and e%uipment, petroleum
refining, incandescent lamps, radio, and &it is said' uranium
mining .
$e provides further ela"oration in the case of the mail>order
"usiness:
(here can be rewards " and great ones " to the successful
competitive innovator. )or example, the mail*order business
was an innovation that had a vast effect upon retailing in
rural and small urban communities in the +nited States. (he
innovators, I suppose, were Aaron Montgomery Ward, who
opened the first general merchandise establishment in -/,
and 0ichard Sears, who entered the industry fourteen years
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 4/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
later. Sears soon lifted his company to a dominant position
by his magnificent merchandising talents, and he obtained a
modest fortune, and his partner 0osenwald an immodest
one. At no time were there any conventional monopolistic
practices, and at all times there were rivals within the
industry and other industries ma1ing near*perfect substitutes &e.g. department stores, local merchants', so the
price fixing*power of the large companies was very small.
#ince /@@ e can add to this list such modern innovations as Day
ErocFs fast>food franchise, the 34>hour convenience store, the
su"ur"an shopping mall, franchise>everything from coffee to
hairdressing, and online commerce.
$oever, these all seem rather o"vious if not stereotyped
e!amples. A less o"vious "ut nevertheless familiar form of
innovation is emigration. 5he first 1nglish, =utch, Irish, or #omaliimmigrant to the 7nited #tates as no less innovative than the
inventor of the airplane, and emigrants are constantly discovering
ne countries and "usiness opportunities ithout any need for
intellectual monopoly. Indeed, emigration and the formation of ne
communities is "oth a prototypical e!ample of the fundamental role
played "y competitive innovation in the development of human
civili8ation, and a reminder of the fact that the forces of monopoly
are alays and almost inescapa"ly at or( after every great
competitive leap forard.
5he first immigrant faces a large cost: he must cross theocean or desert, or mountain range and he faces a high ris( of
failure. 5he cost of imitation is much less % it is (non that the
nefound land is hospita"le and fertile % and the pioneers are
availa"le to inform necomers a"out ?o" opportunities and local
las and customs. Get the common association of -early settlers
ith -old money confirms that there is still a su"stantial advantage
to "eing first.
#adly, as in other industries, after years have gone "y and
the num"er of ne opportunities for immigrants diminishes pressure
from early entrants for monopoly protection emerges, and usuallysucceeds. #uch rent>see(ing legislation in the emigration industry
e call -immigration and naturali8ation restrictions or -*uotas.
5he history of emigration carries also some "roader
messages a"out innovation. It shos that free>entry and unrestricted
imitation characteri8e the most successful e!periences, hile
monopolistic restrictions on immigration are often associated ith
poor su"se*uent economic performances. Hne e!ample is the
4
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 5/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
contrasting e!perience "eteen the <ortuguese#panish settlement
of Central#outh America, and that of the 1nglish settlement of
orth America. 5he first as limited to small "ands of politically
connected adventurers, the second as open even to politically
unpopular groups such as the <uritans. 5he economic conse*uences
spea( for themselves. In a similar ay, successful ne industriesare almost invaria"ly the product of innovation cum imitation cum
cut throat competition, hile many potential successes have "een
tharted from the start "y the adoption of monopolistic
arrangements.
It is also true that the more mature and economically
successful a country is, the stronger is the internal pressure for the
introduction of monopolistic restrictions to immigration. #o it is also
at the end of the industry life>cycle, that ealthy, mature, and
technologically stagnant firms are the "reeding ground of
monopolistic restrictions purchased through the constant lo""ying of politicians and regulators.
The Industrial Revolution and the Steam Engine
It is a idespread "elief that the Industrial Devolution too(
place hen it too( place allegedly, sometime "eteen /0@6 and
/;@6 and here it too( place 1ngland "ecause patents giving
inventors a prolonged period of monopoly poer ere first
introduced "y enlightened rulers at that time and in that place. 5he
e!emplary story of James 'att, the prototypical inventor>
entrepreneur of the time, is often told to confirm the magic role of patents in spurring invention and groth. As e pointed out in the
introduction, this is far from "eing the case.
5he pricing policy of the Boulton and 'att enterprise as a
classical e!ample of monopoly pricing: over and a"ove the cost of
the materials needed to "uild the steam engine, they ould charge
royalties e*ual to one>third of the fuel>costs savings attained "y their
engine in comparison to the ecomen engine. otice to
interesting properties of this scheme: it allos for price
discrimination, and it is founded on the hypothesis that, than(s to
the patent protection, no further technological improvement illta(e place. It allos for price discrimination "ecause, given the
transport technology of the time, the price of coal varied
su"stantially from one region to another. It assumes that
technological improvement ill "e stifled, "ecause it is "ased on the
idea that only the 'att engine could use less coal than the
ecomen engine. o surprise, then, that Boulton and 'att spent
most of their time fighting in court and "an(rupting any inventor,
@
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 6/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
such as Jonathan $orn"loer, ho tried to introduce a machine
either superior to theirs or, at least, superior to the ecomen
engine. It ill also come as no surprise to our readers that, in the
Cornall region here copper and tin ere mined and coal as
e!pensive, a num"er of miners too( to -pirating the engine. 5his
naturally "rought a"out a legal dispute ith Boulton and 'att,hich ended only in /0 ith the, phyrric, victory of the to
monopolists. <hyrric, "ecause their patent e!pired a year later.
5he episode that interests us here, though, lies in the pace
and nature of innovation after the e!piration of the Boulton and 'att
patents. In /;// hen the Boulton and 'att patent had long e!pired
-K a group of mine K managers decided to "egin the pu"lication
of a monthly ?ournal reporting the salient technical characteristics,
the operating procedures and the performance of each engine. 5heir
declared aims ere to permit the rapid individuation and diffusion
of "est>practice techni*ues, and to introduce a climate of competition among the various minesF engineers. 5he pu"lication
enterprise continued until /64.
Hne year later, in /;/3, and in the same region the first high
pressure engine of the so>called -Cornish type as "uilt "y
Dichard 5revithic(. Interestingly enough, 5revithic( did not patent
his high>pressure pumping engine, and alloed any"ody ho
anted to copy it. It happened to "e as efficient as the 'attFs, "ut
much more amena"le to improvement. 5his triggered a long and
e!tremely successful period of -collective innovation in hich
different firms made small, incremental changes to the originaldesign of the Cornish engine. #uch changes ere neither patented
nor (ept secret, there"y spreading rapidly among other firms in the
Cornall area, alloing and at the same time forcing ne
improvements from competitors.
As a measure of the social value of competition versus
monopoly, consider the folloing facts. 5he duty of steam engines
a measure of their coal>efficiency that, during the tenty five
years of the Boulton and 'att monopoly /00@>/;66, had remained
practically constant, improved "y roughly a factor of five during the
/;/6>/;@ period.5his successful colla"orative effort to improve the Cornish
engine illustrates the genius of the competitive mar(et. Because of
uncertainty in coal mining, a modest num"er of investors engaged in
mutual insurance "y each oning shares in a "road cross>section of
mines. As is the case ith shareholders in pu"licly traded
companies, this means that each investor is a"le to capture the
"enefit of innovation, regardless of hich particular firm or
2
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 7/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
engineer made the improvement. And indeed, the employment
contracts of engineers reflected these incentives. 1ngineers ere
employed on a contract "asis "y particular mines to improve
engines, ith the understanding that they ould pu"lish their
results. Investors captured the common gains to all mines from the
innovation, and engineers having signed aay the right tomonopoli8e their invention, instead profiting from their fees and "y
the advertising value of pu"lici8ing their innovations. Indeed in
many respects, this colla"orative, competitive mine engine
improvement is similar to modern day open source softare.
5he Industrial Devolution period is, indeed, a mine of
e!amples, "oth of patents hindering economic progress hile
seldom enriching their oners, and of great riches and even greater
economic progresses achieved ithout patents and than(s to open
competition. Hf many anecdotes, the story of 1li 'hitney is
particularly instructive. Born in 'est"oro, Massachussets, on =ec.;, /02@, 'hitney graduated from Gale College in /03. By April
/0, he had designed and constructed the cotton gin, a machine
that automated the separation of cottonseed from the short>staple
cotton fi"er. ery much li(e the 'attFs engine in the coal districts
of 1ngland, the cotton gin as enormously valua"le in the #outh of
the 7nited #tates, here it made southern cotton a profita"le crop
for the first time. Li(e James 'att, 1li 'hitney also had a "usiness
partner, <hineas Miller, and the to opted for a monopolistic pricing
scheme not dissimilar from the BoultonFs and 'attFs. 5hey ould
install their machines through )eorgia and the #outh, and chargefarmers a fee for doing the ginning for them. 5heir charge as to>
fifths of the profit, paid to them in cotton. ot surprisingly, farmers
did not li(e this pricing scheme very much, and started to -pirate
the machine. 'hitney and Miller asted a lot of time and money
trying to enforce their patent on the cotton gin, "ut ith little
success. Beteen /04 and /;60 they ent around the #outh
"ringing to court everyone in sight, and receiving little
compensation for their strenuous efforts.
Ironically 1li 'hitney did eventually "ecome a rich man %
not through his efforts at monopoli8ation, "ut through the ondersof competitive mar(ets. In /0;, he invented a ay to manufacture
mus(ets "y machine, developing the idea of interchangea"le parts
and standardi8ed production. $e did not "other to see( patent
protection this time, "ut instead set up a shop in 'hitneyville, near
e $aven. $ere he manufactured his mus(ets and sell them to the
7.#. Army. #o it as not as a monopolist of the cotton gin, "ut
0
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 8/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
rather as the competitive manufacturer of mus(ets that 'hitney
finally "ecame rich.
Agriculture
Among economists the reaction to the idea that economic
progress is the fruit of competition is "imodal. 5hose "elonging tothe theoretical variety, interested in matters of pure economic theory
and logic, tend to *uic(ly agree and then yan aay the rest of the
seminar+ the conclusion seemed to follo straightforardly from
the assumptions. #pecialists or(ing in the areas of innovation,
economic groth, and industrial organi8ation long steeped in the
conventional isdom are certain that the idea cannot possi"ly "e
correct, although uncertain as to hy not. 5he e!ception are
specialists in agricultural economics, ho react ith neither
"oredom nor rage. It turns out that until the early /06s innovation
in agriculture has flourished ithout much in the ay of protectionfrom intellectual monopoly % and that agricultural economists are
ell aare of this. Breeders ould develop a ne plant variety, the
initial seeds of hich ere sold to farmers at relatively high prices.
9armers ere then free to reproduce and resell such seeds on the
mar(et and compete ith the initial "reeders, ithout the latter
"ringing them to court "ecause those "ushels of, say, 5ur(ey Ded
heat ere -illegal copies of the 5ur(ey Ded heat variety they
held a patent on.
Innovation in agriculture revolves around plants and
animals. either the /0 original nor the /@3 revised version of the 7.#. patent code mentioned the possi"ility of patenting different
forms of life, "e they animal or vegeta"le. 5he issue did not arise
during most of the nineteenth century, "ut a precedent against
patenting as esta"lished in /;;, hen the 7.#. Commissioner of
<atents re?ected an application for a patent to cover a fi"er identified
in the needles of a pine tree. 5he Commissioner isely pointed out
that patenting some nely found form of life ould "e tantamount
to attri"ute monopoly poer and de facto onership on all copies
of that form of life to "e su"se*uently found, hich struc( him, as it
stri(es us, as -unreasona"le and impossi"le.#hortly afterards, the discovery of MendelFs la % imagine
a orld in hich Mendel had managed to patent his la, a very
li(ely possi"ility these days % started a long series of attempts to
su"vert the /;; doctrine. 5he ational Committee on <lant <atents,
created and financed "y the countryFs "reeders, as the leader of an
intense lo""ying campaign arguing that no, contrary to "efore, a
-ne plantanimal could, in principle, "e e!actly identified and that
;
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 9/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
its -creation as e*uivalent therefore to the invention of a ne
mechanical tool. otice an important detail: during the many
decades it too( to "uy monopoly protection from Congress, the
"reeding industry as, literally, "lossoming and groing under
conditions of competition and ithout intellectual monopoly
protection. In fact, it had prospered so much that its economic poer and a"ility to influence congress and the pu"lic opinion increased to
the point that it as a"le to get the la changed.
5here is a "asic pattern here, that is u"i*uitous in the life
cycle of most ne industries. Innovative and dynamic industries
emerge either "ecause intellectual monopoly is not present or to
"ypass it. 5hey gro rapidly "ecause competition and imitation
allo and force their firms to innovate or perish. In fact, in the early
stages, agricultural innovators often ould provide their customers
ith incentives to copy and reproduce their seeds, as a tool for
spreading its usage. $oever, as the industry gro more poerfuland the opportunities for further innovation diminishes the value of
monopoly protection for the insiders increases, lo""ying efforts
multiply and, unfortunately, most often succeed.
In the case of the "reeding industry, a partial victory as
first achieved during the )reat =epression, ith the <lant <atent Act
of /6. 5he victory as only partial "ecause, due mostly to issues
of enforcea"ility, patents ere alloed only for plants that could
reproduce ase!ually. It e!plicitly e!cluded tu"er and se!ually
reproduced plants. 9or these crops the scientific (noledge of the
times made it impossi"le to satisfy the <atent La re*uisite that a patenta"le invention "e disclosed specifically enough to "e
identically reproduci"le.
As the reader may imagine, this limitation did not please the
American #eed 5rade Association, hich had greatly contri"uted to
the lo""ying effort. 'hile a useful precedent, the /6 Act as too
ea( and covered too fe plants, hence it did not really provide
"reeders ith the e!tensive monopoly poer they sought+ such
-ea(ness revealed itself in the fact that, hile agricultural
innovations continued at a su"stantial pace, only // plant patents
ere assigned in the period until the early /@6s. In the meanhilelo""ying "y potential monopolists did not go aay, instead it
intensified as ne and poerful interest groups ?oined the clan. 5he
discovery of the =A code, and the su"se*uent development of
"iological engineering, ould, eventually, come to rescue the
monopolistFs demand for full protection.
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 10/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
5o mar( the progress of innovation in agriculture, corn as a
common and important crop ma(es a useful case study. 'e sho in
the figure "elo crop yields for 7.#. corn, averaged "y decade.
7p until the /46s yields do not change much % this turns out to
have little to do ith lac( of innovation, and is due primarily to the
fact that as agriculture moved est into poorer climates and soil
continuous innovation as re*uired ?ust to maintain crop yields. As
the area under cultivation sta"ili8es, "eginning ith the /46s and
especially in the /@6s crop yields e!plode. 5he primary
innovations underlying this e!plosion are the introduction of
improved hy"rid varieties that are more responsive to heavy
fertili8ation.
5he (ey point to reali8e is that the "ul( of the groth in
yield too( place hen patents on plant life ere impossi"le or rare.
Indeed, as e have o"served patents on corn hy"rids "ecame
idespread only after =A "ased research "egan. <ioneer>$i>Bred
International recorded the first such patent on corn in /04. 5he
large surge in patenting of corn varieties occurred in the period/04>;4 % su"stantially after the revolution in crop yield as ell
under ay.
Spanish Hortalezas and Italian Maglioni
Introducing high>tech greenhouse fruits> and vegeta"les>
culture in Almeria, #pain, in the early /26s as as much an
/6
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 11/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
-economic innovation as the development of the 3;2
microprocessor in California, 7nited #tates, to decades later. It
too( place through the effort of a large num"er of completely
un(non farmers and in the a"sence of any patent protection of the
"usiness methods and production techni*ues they created or
adopted. In /2, Almeria as as poor and desert as anything can "e, so much so, that #ergio Leone ent there to shoot his -spaghetti
esterns: it loo(ed li(e the desert of Ari8ona and #outhern 7tah,
"ut it as a lot closer and cheaper. 5hen the first greenhouse, a
simple and lo>cost pergola>type structure, gave "irth to the
-Almerian miracle. 5he physical change rought in Almeria is
graphically illustrated in the A#A satellite images "elo, shoing
the landscape "efore and after.
'hoever the first fe innovators ere, they ere rapidly
and idely imitated "y many other small farmers, "ut this did not
apparently reduce their drive to get there first. In fact, the innovators
of Almeria ere, most certainly, imitators of the long esta"lished
tradition of family -huertas in the near"y region of Murcia. 5he
difference "eing that, in Almeria, "etter land as availa"le, agesere loer, and the sudden competitive drive that reciprocal
imitation spurned, led to gigantic efficiency gains. Hver a period of
forty years, this competition "rought /66,666 acres of land under
cultivation, and it "uilt todayFs most productive and successful
agricultural enclave in all of 1urope, and pro"a"ly of the orld.
//
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 12/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
A similar revolution happened at a"out the same time in the
area around 5reviso, Italy, hen the mem"ers of the Benetton
family introduced the -ready>to>color seater production process
and adopted creative franchising techni*ues that in a couple of
decades transformed a large segment of the clothing sector. Both
their original production process and their mar(eting anddistri"ution methods ere rapidly imitated, and improved, first "y
competitors from the same area and then from all (inds of far aay
places. 5he megastores of 2ara and 34M , attracting hordes of
shoppers everyhere in the orld, are, until no, the last stage of
the innovation>cum>imitation process that 5enetton started forty
years ago.
1ach of these economic innovations as costly, too( place
ithout intellectual property and as *uic(ly imitated+ "ecause of
these facts, they not only "rought fortune to their original creators,
"ut also led to idespread economic changes in the geographicalareas and the economic sectors har"oring the initial innovation. In
the cases of Almeria and 5reviso the innovation>cum>imitation
process as so deep and so persistent that it spilled over to other
sectors, leading to a continued increase in productivity that, in a fe
decades, turned to relatively underdeveloped areas into some of
the richest provinces of #pain and Italy, respectively. Indeed, the
social value of an innovation is ma!imi8ed hen it spreads rapidly
and, "y spurring competition, it induces further aves of innovation.
Current legislation seems designed to prevent this from happening,
there"y greatly reducing the social value of innovative activity.
Financial Markets
'hen you hear the phrase -?udge>made la you pro"a"ly
thin( of controversial areas, such as a"ortion and privacy. But the
greatest changes in the legal system made "y ?udges, ithout
legislative revie or approval, have occurred in the area of patent
la. 5he e!tension of patent protection to computer softare is one
e!ample. Another is the patenting of financial securities. <rior to
/;, investment "an(ers and other firms selling financial securities
operated ithout the -"enefit of intellectual property. 5he rapid pace of innovation in financial securities prior to /; is ell
documented, for e!ample "y 5ufano. 5ufano estimates that roughly
36 of ne security issues involve an -innovative structure. $e
reports developing a list of some /;2 ne securities over a 36 year
period and remar(s that this
/3
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 13/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
severely underestimates! the amount of financial
innovation as it includes only corporate securities. It
excludes the tremendous innovation in exchange traded
derivatives, over*the*counter derivative stoc1s &such as the
credit derivatives, e%uity swaps, weather derivatives, and
exotic over*the*counter options', new insurance contracts&such as alternative ris1 transfer contracts or contingent
e%uity contracts', and new investment management products
&such as folio)6 or exchange traded funds.'
5hree features of this mar(et particularly deserve note. 5he
first is that innovating in the financial securities industry is very
costly, as those creating ne securities are highly paid individuals
ith <h=s in economics, mathematics and theoretical physics. 5he
second is that financial innovations are *uic(ly imitated "y
competitors. 5he third, is that there is a pronounced advantage of "eing first, ith the innovator retaining a @6>26 mar(et share even
in the long>run. Accounts in the popular press of investment "an(ing
in the /;6s, such as LeisFs vivid portrayal, also document that
innovation as idespread, despite the complete lac( of intellectual
monopoly.
5he story, sadly, is not over. Hn July 3, /;, in State
Street 5an1 4 (rust 7o. v. Signature )inancial 8roup, Inc., the
7.#. Court of Appeals for the 9ederal Circuit held patenta"le
#ignatureFs -=ata <rocessing #ystem for $u" and #po(e 9inancial
#ervices Configuration. <rior to this ruling, methods of doing "usiness and mathematical algorithms could not "e patented. After
this ruling, at least insofar as they are em"odied in computer code,
"usiness methods and algorithms are patenta"le, and in particular, it
is no possi"le to patent financial securities: there are no tens of
thousands of patented -financial inventions. By this remar(a"le act
of ?udicial activism the courts e!tended government granted
monopolies to thriving mar(ets, such as those for financial
securities, here innovation and competition had gone hand>in>hand
for decades. #hould this trend not "e reversed, e e!pect that ithin
a decade or so, economists studying the 7.#. financial securitiesindustry ill "e pondering a -productivity slodon, and
ondering hat on earth may have caused it.
esign
9or historical and practical reasons, neither fashion design
nor design at large achitecture, furniture, lighting, and so forth are
effectively protected "y patents and copyrights. 5o "e sure, design
/
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 14/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
patents e!ist, are carefully and scrupulously descri"ed in
voluminous manuals, and hundreds of design patent applications are
filed ith the 7#<5H every month, mostly for the "enefit of the
layers that ta(e care of filing those applications. $oever, it is
*uite clear from everyday e!perience that in design imitation is as
idespread and common as sand in the #ahara desert. )eneraldesign concepts, and even *uite particular and specific ones, are de
facto not patenta"le "ecause, on the one hand, too many features of
the design of a useful o"?ect are dictated "y utilitarian concerns and,
on the other, even very minor ornamental variations are enough to
ma(e a certain -design different from the original one. <ractically
spea(ing, hat this means is that car companies imitate each other
in shaping and styling their cars+ architects and engineers do the
same ith "uildings and "ridges not to spea( of university halls+
furniture ma(ers copy each otherFs "eds, sofas, and coffee ta"les+
lamp ma(ers are continuously coming up ith yet another variationon the design of ArtemideFs 5i8io+ all female tailleurs are copycats
of ChanelFs K and so on and so forth.
'hile design is not all that there is in a coat or in a sofa, it is
more and more the factor around hich a competitive edge is "uilt.
1ven the most casual of o"servers can scarcely "e unaare of the
enormous innovation that occurs in the clothing and accessories
industry every si! months, ith a fe top designers racing to set the
standards that ill "e adopted "y the ealthy first, and idely
imitated "y the mass producers of clothing for the not so ealthy
shortly after. And -shortly after, here, means really shortly after.5he no orld>ide phenomenon of the #panish clothing company
2ara and of its many imitators shos that one can "ring to the
mass mar(et the designs introduced for the very top clientele ith a
delay that varies "eteen three and si! months. #till, the original
innovators (eep innovating, and (eep "ecoming richer.
#imilarly in the fine arts, hile individual or(s can "e
protected "y copyright, methods, techni*ues, styles, and -concepts
cannot "e patented. arnedoe provides vivid documentation of the
enormous inventive activity in the modern figurative arts % and the
e*ually rampant imitation that occurred in that field % all in thecomplete a"sence of intellectual monopoly. $is discussion of
idespread e!perimentation % "y a variety of artists % on the use of
perspective is "ut one e!ample. 9inally, consider the enormous
groth of the contemporary -lesser "rother of the fine arts,
advertising and mar(eting. Its economic impact is one or to orders
of magnitude greater than that of the traditional fine arts sector
although the "orders have "een getting more and more "lurred
/4
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 15/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
during the course of the last century and, also in this sector, neither
patents nor copyrights play a relevant role. #till, and almost "y
definition, if there is a sector of economic activity for hich
innovation and novelty are the (ey factors, advertising is certainly
the prime candidate.
Sports
'hen e!amining the social merit of pu"lic institutions, a
useful *uestion to as( is hether the same institutions are used in
the private sector. 9or e!ample, government "ureaucracies are
idely thought to "e inefficient. Get e o"serve, for e!ample, in the
very competitive I5 industry that IBMFs internal "ureaucratic
structure has survived, and indeed thrived, over many years. $ence,
e have to conclude that it is li(ely that "ureaucracies do achieve
some socially desira"le goals.
'e can as( the same *uestion a"out intellectual monopoly.If intellectual monopoly is a good idea in the pu"lic sector as a ay
of encouraging innovation, is it used in the private sector for that
purpose A case in point is sports leagues. 5ypically, these leagues
have a near a"solute poer over an entire sport and the rules "y
hich it is played+ they also have full control of the commercial
part, and stand to "enefit from anything that increases demand for
their product. Innovation is also important in sports, ith such
innovations as the 9os"ury 9lop in high ?umping, the triangle
offense in "as(et"all, and of course the many ne American
foot"all plays that are introduced every year, serving to improve performance and provide greater consumer satisfaction. Indeed, the
position of the sports leagues ith respect to innovation in their on
sport is not apprecia"ly different from that of the "enevolent social
planner invo(ed "y economists in assessing alternative economic
institutions.
)iven that sports leagues are in the position of ishing to
encourage all innovations for hich the "enefits e!ceed the cost,
they are also in the position to implement a private system of
intellectual property, should they find it advantageous. 5hat is, there
is nothing to prevent, say, the ational 9oot"all League fromaarding e!clusive rights to a ne foot"all play for a period of time
to the coach or inventor of the ne play. #tri(ingly, e (no of no
sports league that has ever done this. Apparently in sports the
competitive provision of innovation serves the social purpose, and
additional incentive in the form of aards of monopoly poer do
not serve a useful purpose.
/@
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 16/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
As alays, there is an ironic footnote to this triumph of
competition: some legal analysts in the 7nited #tates no argue that
the government should enforce patents on sports moves.
Patent Pools
In addition to sports leagues, there is another significant andidespread e!ample of private companies voluntarily relin*uishing
intellectual property. 5hese are the so>called -patent>pools. A
patent pool is an agreement, generally "y a num"er of "usinesses in
the same industry, to share patents. Although it is sometimes the
case that hen the pool is set up, a company that has fe patents
ill ma(e a payment to a company that has many patents, once the
pool is operating, there is no payment "eteen companies for
patents. Any patent "y any company in the pool is freely availa"le
to any other company in the pool. In some cases patent pools ta(e
the form of cross>licensing agreements in hich firms agree toautomatically cross>license all patents falling into certain categories.
=espite the apparent communistic nature no -intellectual
property for the in>group of these arrangements, patent pools have
"een idely used.
In the +nited States, in a number of industries, processes of
9collective invention: were implemented by means of patent
pools. 6ote that in some cases, patent pools were created
after having experienced phases of slow innovation due to
the existence of bloc1ing patents. In the -;s, producers of 5essemer steel decided to share information on design
plants and performances through the 5essemer Association
&a patent pool holding control of the essential patents in the
production of 5essemer steel'. (he creation of this patent
pool was stimulated by the unsatisfactory innovative
performance of the industry under the 9pure: patent system
regime. In that phase, the control of essential patents by
different firms had determined an almost indissoluble
technological deadloc1. Similar concerns over patent
bloc1ages led firms operating in the railway sector to adopt the same expedient of semi*automatic cross*licenses and
1nowledge sharing.
At the current time, patent pools are generally mandatory for
participants in recogni8ed standard setting organi8ations such as the
International 5elecommunications 7nion and American ational
#tandards Institute. Large microprocessor corporations, such as
/2
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 17/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
IBM, Intel, Nero! and $elett><ac(ard engage in e!tensive cross
licensing. Important computer technologies, including the M<1)3
movie standard and other elements of == technology are part of a
patent pool.
)iven the idespread illingness of large corporations to
voluntarily relin*uish patent protection through cross>licensing and patent pools, you might onder hy eliminating patents ould even
"e necessary. 7nfortunately, hile patent pools eliminate the ill
effects of patents ithin the pool % they leave the outsiders, ell,
outside. If the e!isting firms in an industry have a patent pool, then
the prospects of a necomer entering are "lea( indeed. #o hile
patent pools may give a strong indication that patents are not a
terri"ly good idea, and that competition has many "enefits % they do
not unfortunately undo some of the most important harm of
government enforced monopoly % that of preventing entry into an
industry.
Pro!its "ithout Patents
<atenting is high and groing "y historical standards. 5he
total num"er of 7.#. patents has increased 0;, to //4,34/ "eteen
/; and /@. Get it turns out "usinesses do not regard patents as a
significant factor in their decision to innovate. 5here are to
surveys of D&= research directors in hich this clearly emerges.
5his first is the -Gale #urvey ta(en in /;0, and the second is the
-Carnegie #urvey done in 3666. 'e focus on the more recent and
more detailed Carnegie #urvey, "ut the same facts emerge from theearlier Gale #urvey.
5he Carnegie #urvey reports in 3666 that it received
responses from ///; firms for product innovations, and /6;0 for
process innovation. 5he firms ere as(ed hether particular
methods ere effective in appropriating the gains from an
innovation. 5he ta"le "elo shos the percentage of firms
indicating that the particular techni*ue as effective. 5he num"ers
in parentheses are the corresponding figures for the pharmaceutical
and medical e*uipment industries respectively: these are the to
industries in hich the highest percentage of respondents indicatedthat patents are effective.
Product Process
secrecy @/.66 @.@0, @6.0 @6.@2;./, 4.34
lead time @3.02 @6./6, @;.62 ;.4@.@3, 4@./@
complementary
manufacturing
[email protected]/ 4., 4.3@ 4.6644./0, 4.@@
/0
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 18/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
complementary
sales/service
43.04 .0, @3.@/ [email protected]/, 3./3
patents 4.; @6.36 ,@4.06 3.62./@, 4.63
other legal 36.0/ 36.;3, 3.6 /@./2.64, 33.30
5he most stri(ing fact is that legal means, "oth patents and other
legal means are regarded as the least effective method of
appropriating rents. Hnly a"out /rd of respondents feel that patents
are effective. #ecrecy, lead time % the advantage of "eing first, and
complementary manufacturing are rated as the most effective.
Indeed, in the case of products, "eing first is vieed as the most
effective means of appropriation. 5he to e!ceptional industries,
hich report a relatively high importance of patents are the
pharmaceutical and medical e*uipment industries. Indeed, these
industries, especially the pharmaceutical industry, are often held up
as e!amples of hy it is essential to have patents. Get even in theseindustries, only a"out half the respondents rate patents as an
effective means of appropriation. Also stri(ing is that in these
industries, other means such as lead time, complementary
manufacturing and secrecy are regarded as a"out e*ually effective
as in other industries. $ence, hile patents are vieed as more
effective in these industries, non>legal means are still *uite effective
in appropriating rents.
Also of interest are the reasons for hich patents are
considered valua"le "y "usiness firms. 'ith 0@@ product, and 204
process respondents, the Carnegie #urvey reports the folloing percentage of respondents indicating the particular motivation for
see(ing a patent.
Product Process
measure performance @.0@ @.64
licensing revenue 3;.30 3.3@
use in negotiations 40.; .2
prevent suits @;.00 42.@6
prevent copying @.;/ 00.2/
blocking ;/.;/ 2.@;enhance reputation 40./ 4.6
otice that licensing revenue % the sale of ideas, is relatively
unimportant. 5he achievement of monopoly poer through the
prevention of copying is *uite important. But notice also the
importance of pure rent>see(ing: use in negotiations, preventing
/;
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 19/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
suits, and "loc(ing competition have a cumulative score of /;0.2
for product innovations and /@6.64 for process innovations. 5his
can "e ta(en as a crude indication that the amount of loss due to
rent>see(ing attri"uta"le to patents e!ceeds the amount of additional
monopoly profit generated % not e!actly a strong reason for a patent
system.
#oncluding Remarks
5here are several e!amples that do not fit neatly into the
category of innovation ithout intellectual monopoly "ecause of a
strong presence of government su"sidies, "ut these e!amples are too
dramatic to "e "ypassed completely. 5he first is progress in "asic
science. Basic scientists have never "een entitled to a monopoly on
their research+ in modern times this research is heavily su"sidi8ed,
"ut eton, =arin, and 1instein received neither intellectual
monopoly, nor government su"sidy % and there are of course manyother less prominent e!amples. As alays, there is a fly in this
ointment. 5raditionally university and government su"sidi8ed
research did not "enefit from intellectual monopoly. =espite the
a"sence of any apparent lac( of university research, or adoption in
industry, recently pu"lic policy in the 7nited #tates, under the guise
of so>called -pu"lic>private partnership, has "een to encourage
universities to apply for intellectual monopolies even for
government su"sidi8ed research.
9inally, the remar(a"le pace of innovation during the
#econd 'orld 'ar should not escape notice. In /46, the Britishgovernment as a"le to employ //4 style "iplanes to help sin( the
"attleship Bismarc(. By /4@ the )ermans deployed ?et aircraft, and
"oth cruise and "allistic missiles. =evelopments in electronics and
cryptography ere e*ually dramatic, and no development perhaps
so dramatic as that of the fission "om". Intellectual monopoly
clearly played no role in these developments, and indeed the
environment of colla"oration ithin the com"atant nations
possi"le in its a"sence seems to have had a (ey role in the dramatic
acceleration of technological progress. 'hile government su"sidy
as significant, any reading, for e!ample, of the history of theManhattan pro?ect, or Bletchley <ar(, ma(es clear that the enormous
effort provided "y individual scientists as not a response to an
e!pectation of financial reard, either from the government or
private sector.
But the e!ample of the #econd 'orld 'ar is important for a
second reason. 'e often thin( of government su"sidy as an
alternative to intellectual monopoly % "ut in the #econd 'orld 'ar,
/
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 20/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
the competition "eteen governments illustrates clearly ho a
competitive mar(et produces innovation in the a"sence of
intellectual monopoly. 5a(e the fission "om" as an e!ample. 5he
potential innovators ere not individuals, "ut rather the different
governments % most importantly the 7.#., a8i )ermany, and the
#oviet 7nion. 5he country that first succeeded in inventing thefission "om" o"viously as not going to "e granted an e!clusive
legal monopoly "y its rivals, so the conditions ere those of
competition. Imitation as a ma?or concern % and the evidence
suggests that the cost of "eing second % "y the #oviets % as
su"stantially less than the cost of "eing first, and the cost of "eing
third Britain, fourth 9rance and fifth China % less yet. In the
a"sence of intellectual monopoly, trade secrecy played an important
role in creating incentives for innovation. $oever, despite heroic
efforts % violation of trade secrecy in this case carrying ith it the
death penalty % it too( only four years for the #oviet 7nion tofollo the e!ample of the 7.#. % *uite a "it less than the seventeen
years granted under international patent la at that time.
ever>the>less there as a huge advantage in "eing first. At
the end of the ar ith )ermany, the 7.#. and its estern allies
ere heavily outnum"ered "y the #oviets in 1urope % and the
#oviets had "etter tan(s and shorter supply lines. 5he fear of #oviet
invasion of 'estern 1urope as sufficiently high that it has often
"een argued that a rationale for 5ruman e!ploding the second "om"
at agasa(i as a signal not to Japan, "ut to the #oviet 7nion.
Degardless, the fact that the 7.#. as first certainly played asignificant role in assuring the freedom of 'estern 1urope after the
ar. 5he advantage of "eing first % even though it lasted for only a
short hile % provided incentive for the most massive research
pro?ect ever underta(en+ the Manhattan pro?ect cost over a hundred
times more than the most e!pensive movie or pharmaceutical
research pro?ect ever. Get, the incentives that induced this huge
pu"lic investment ere not different from those that arise in private
competitive mar(ets: innovate or get "eat "y your competitors and
perish.
36
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 21/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
Notes
5he technical literature on the life>cycle of industries is very
large, still only a fe authors seem to have paid attention to the
correlation "eteen competition and the degree of technological
innovation on the one hand, and o"solescence and demand for
monopolistic restrictions on the other.#tigler O/@2P argues against the #chumpeterian vie that
monopoly is a good thing "ecause it "rings forth innovation. As
indicated "y the *uotations in the te!t, his vie, li(e ours, is that
plentiful innovation occurs under competition.
A classical account of the vie that the Industrial
Devolution ould, at least, have "een greatly retarded had not
patents "een availa"le and enforced in 1ngland at the end of the
eighteenth century can "e found in orth O/;/P. 5he Cornall
mining industry e!perience is studied in uvolari O3664P. An
analogous episode is that of ClevelandFs iron producers % Cleveland, 7.E., not Hhio % deftly documented and discussed in
Allen O/;P. Around the middle of the nineteenth century they
managed to fiercely compete hile alloing technical information
on the development and improvments of the "last furnace to flo
freely from one company to the other. 5hat 5revithic( did not patent
his invention is documented in Doe O/@P. A good and relatively
succinct survey of the history of technology is in =erry and
'illiams O/26P.
An historical analyses of the agricultural sector "efore the
advent of patenting can "e found in McClellan O/0P, for the 7#,and Camp"ell and Hverton O//P, for 1urope. =etailed studies of
the -nineteenth and early tentieth century O...P stream of "iological
innovations in 7# agriculture are, for e!ample, Hlmstead and
Dhode O3663P, for grain and cereals, Hlmstead and Dhode O366P,
for cotton, and Barragan Arce O366@P, for fruit trees. Hlmstead and
Dhode O366P also document ho, in the cotton farming sector,
-inventors, during an early phase of the product cycle, actually
encouraged consumers to copy and disseminate their intellectual
property. Crop yield data is from the ational Agriculture #tatistics
#ervice, information on patents of corn hy"rids from 7r"an O3666P.5he history of -maglioni in the Italian orth 1ast comes
mostly from the first hand e!perience of one of us, a chronology of
Benetton is at .museedelapu".org. 5he satellite images of
Almeria are from A#A and are reproduced idely, for e!ample at
.i"erianature.com. More detailed facts are in Costas and
$euvelin( O3666P. In case you dou"t our statement that AlmeriaFs
horticulture is pro"a"ly the most efficient agricultural enclave in the
3/
7/25/2019 Chapter 4 - Innovation Without Patents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-4-innovation-without-patents 22/22
Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 4
orld, chec( out edis.ifas.ufl.edu. Hne of the many stories of
innovation ith imitation and competition e have not told, "ut that
should "e told, is that of the e!tremely successful 5aianese
machine tool industry, an account of hich is in #ono"e, Eaa(ami
and Htsu(a O366P. Quoting only this, though, amounts to doing an
in?ustice to so many others ... "ut even "oo(s have limited capacity.Innovation in the financial industry prior to patents is
documented in to papers "y 5ufano O/;, 3663P and "y a recent
paper "y $errera and #chroth O3664P. A less academic vie of the
investment "an(ing industry can "e found in Leis O/;P. 5he
"usiness practices patent dates to the /; Court of Appeals for the
9ederal Circuit decision in -#tate #treet Ban( v. #ignature
9inancial. In one of the most dramatic e!amples of ?udicial
legislation, they found that there is no prohi"ition in 7.#. la on
patents for "usiness methods as long as they are ne, useful, and
non>o"vious. 5his is mentioned in Ladas and <arry O366P ho also provide a useful summary of (ey developments in 7.#. <atent La.
5he #tate #treet Ban( Case is also discussed at .gigala.com.
'olfgang <esendorfer O/@P models the fashion cycle
along lines that are perfectly consistent ith competitive creation.
Innovation in the figurative arts is discussed, in arnedoe O/6P.A proposal for patenting sports moves is Eu((onen O/;P.
5he *uotation a"out the Bessemer patent pool is from uvolariO3664P. Most of the remaining information a"out patent pools isfrom #hapiro O366/P.
5he -Gale #urvey is descri"ed in Levin et al O/;0P and
Elevoric( et al O/@P. -5he Carnegie #urvey is descri"ed in
Cohen et al O3666P. A study of the impact of the increased role of
universities in patent and other forms of intellectual monopoly can
"e found in Colyvas et al O3663P.