Summary: Our patent system has historically been thought to be an engine of innovation, but it is much criticized today. Is a one-size-fits all model for patent duration appropriate in today's technological environment or does it simply incentivize unnecessary litigation? For instance, the rapid pace of technological change in some areas may obviate the need of lengthy patents in some areas. Should certain innovation—such as business processes be patentable? Should the patent office be reorganized or split up to better assess patents. What other types of incentives, including those provided by copyright or prizes, provide alternatives to patents? This program was presented on February 21, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium. -- Featuring: Ms. Phyllis Turner-Brim, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Intellectual Ventures; Prof. Doug Melamed, Visiting Professor, Stanford Law School; Prof. Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law; and Mr. Adam Mortara, Partner, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. Moderator: Hon. Danny J. Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
