LAUSR

Dear Sir, Our concerns about the practice of patenting scientometric techniques began with an electronic notification alerting one of us to a patent titled “Scientometric Methods for Identifying Emerging Technologies” (Abercrombie, Schlicher, & Sheldon, 2015). This came to our attention after we had already embarked on a research program to apply scientometric methods for the identification of emerging technologies here at the JRC. We were at a loss how to respond. This seemed to run counter to the spirit of openness and public science that has characterized the bibliometric community from the start. We got in contact with former colleagues Ben Martin and Daniele Rotolo, authors of a bibliometric study entitled “What is an emerging technology?” (together with Diana Hicks, published in Research Policy, 2015). Even though we were experts and professionals in innovation studies (although not all specifically on IP), we were not entirely sure of the patent’s wider implications. Could it threaten to shut down our research? Could it rule out any research funding or consultancy opportunities? What ensued was a series of fruitful exchanges between us authors, with some of us not sure how to interpret this patent, and others disappointed (even outraged) that the patent had been granted on grounds of “nonobviousness.” Opinions were divided whether a patent like this could have any impact at all. It took us a long time to grasp the (possible) implications of this patent, but other researchers in other circumstances might not have been as fortunate. Amid the uncertainty, the issue has a lot of relevance. Patents can block basic research (Andrews et al., 2006)— see, for instance, the case of plant science (Yancey & Stewart, 2007). Even thinking about a patented technique while using an alternative one may constitute a case for infringement of patent rights (Andrews et al., 2006). This seems to us particularly problematic when the patented technique has dubious novelty, nonobviousness, or disclosure. Moreover, we live in an increasingly globalized economy, where Trade Agreements put increasing importance on IP and patents, and reinforce the scope for private companies to sue other companies, universities, or even governments—see for instance WTO’s TRIPS agreement, or the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership. Meanwhile, governments often take patents as indicators of economic development, and introduce policies to increase the number of patents as well as to strengthen the economic rights afforded by these patents. This is occurring while patent offices are granting increasing numbers of patents, allowing “bad” patents to be granted, while maintaining a stance of “rational ignorance” (Lemley, 2001). We should be more (not less) careful now about what is patented and the way patent systems work. These are times of growing discontent with respect to the latter (see inter alia Boldrin & Levine, 2013), whereas popular opinion (and relatedly, the Open Access movement) considers that scientific output should be freely available. Coming back to our case, scientometrics has recently enjoyed a rapid growth and there is considerable interest regarding the analysis of Emerging Technologies, not only from the academic community, but also from policy makers and international organizations. Some of us authors learned that patenting in scientometrics and bibliometrics actually has a longer history (for earlier patents see Boyack, Grafe, Johnson, & Wylie, 2002; Goodman et al., 2004; Kostoff, 2005; Kostoff, Miles, & Eberhart, 1995). We feel there is a need for greater clarity concerning what is patentable and what is not—and that this clarity will prevent the rise of patenting of scientometric methods. For example, the requirement of nonobviousness to “one skilled in the art” should be applied more rigorously, and broad-scope patents based on commonly used methods should not be patentable. Actually, some of the patents cited here (and many IT business methods ones) are essentially represented by an algorithm consisting of a series of basic necessary steps for the evaluation of a specific quantity. Generally, Andrews et al. (2006) describe the broad claims of one improbable US Patent (Shetty, 2005): “One patent claims the use of a computer to derive a solution to any optimization algorithm. . . . Commentators expressed the opinion that no one would ever attempt to patent such an obvious and important method of problem-solving . . . The patent holder can, until the patent expires in 2021, demand a royalty from any industrial engineer, facilities planner, telecommunications analyst, or other researcher who uses this algorithm with computer assistance.” Patenting in scientometrics and bibliometrics is often done because individuals (e.g., working in US government laboratories) have incentives to demonstrate to their superiors that they are at the forefront of technical VC 2016 ASIS&T