Against Intellectual Monopoly

18-19. See also the original Mowery (1990).
    22. The New York Times, August 3, 2004, Business Section.
    23. Information about Diamond v. Chakrabarty and its implication for the patentability
of biotechnology products is widely available on the Web. One possible starting point
among many is Urban (2000). Two other judicial rulings that were instrumental in
the process of extending patents to the agricultural and biotechnological sector are
Ex parte Hibbert in 1985 and Ex parte Allan in 1987.
    24. Alston and Venner (2000), Abstract. For a classical study of the diffusion of agricultural innovation in the US in the period before the PVPA bill made it a big
monopolies feast, the technically inclined reader should consult Griliches (1957),
who beautifully documents competitive innovation at work. The many sweeping
statements we have made, here and in the previous chapter, in relation to the agricultural sector and the irrelevance of patents for its technological development, are
based on the scientific research reported in Butler and Marion (1985), Campbell and
Overton (1991), Griliches (1960), Kloppenburg (1988), McClelland (1997), among
others.
    25. June 25, 2000, article, available at http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html
(accessed February 24, 2008). Additional detailed information about the Basmati rice patent is widespread on the Internet. For example, http://www.american.
edu/TED/basmati.htm (accessed February 24.2008), reports detailed, precise information about this and a dozen other cases.
    26. Slashdot, http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/13/2023220 (accessed
February 24, 2008). The story about the Provisional Authority imposing agricultural
IP on Iraq farmers is also widely documented elsewhere.
    27. The copyright lawsuit over the Freedom Tower is discussed in Sadeghi (2004).
    28. The discussion and quotations are from "Suit Claiming Similarities in Tower Design
Can Proceed" New York Times Region Section, August 11, 2005.
    29. Bessen and Hunt (2003), p. 25. James Bessen, formerly an electronic publishing
innovator, has become during the past few years a prolific researcher on the theme
of software patents, with a particular attention to the empirical aspects of the
problem. A number of other interesting papers, beside those we quote here, can be
found at his site, http://www.researchoninnovation.org, and a substantial amount
of technical news is at the blog Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property,
found at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/, which he edits.
    For more fun with software patents go to the site by the same name, at swpat.
ffii.org/patents/effects/index.en.html, which defines itself as a "Collection of news stories and case studies showing how the granting, licensing and litigation of patents
is affecting players in the software field." It makes for an entertaining and very
educational reading.

    30. Fox (2002), p. 2.
    31. Quoted in Bessen and Hunt (2003), p. 27. Consistently similar arguments can
be found in his writings and presentations collected at http://www.
researchoninnovation.org/qufllen/qufllen.htm.
    32. Graham (2002), p. 1. This valuable, if technical, dissertation is the source for our
story of Selden and the cartelization of the American automobile industry. Graham
also looks at the "strategic" usage of the continuation patent during the 1975-94
period. To make a long story short, "continuation" consists of a set of legal tricks,
all supported by current legislation, allowing you to keep secrecy and make your
patent last longer at the same time; a kind of "Duracell monopoly." It will certainly
not surprise you that, since the middle 1980s, the share of continuation patents has
been increasing rapidly and steadily.
    33. A good discussion of Jerome Lemelson and his submarine patents is in Perelman
(2002), but plenty of information can be found online by just entering the name in
Google and following the links. Most sites are grossly apologetic, but they report the
facts, and the facts speak by themselves.
    34. From the FTC complaint, FTC (2002), p. 2. The story of Rambus is drawn from
that complaint, available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/06/rambus.shtm (accessed
Feburary 24, 2008).
    35. The outcome of Honeywell v. Minolta was widely reported. See, for example, Mallory
(1992).
    36. The Wright's brothers patent can be found online at http://invention.psychology.