An article written by James Bessen and Michael Meuer, and published last week in the Boston Globe, raises serious questions about the pair’s credibility as participants in the on-going debate about patent reform in the United States. Claims made in the article by the two Boston University academics, whose work has been cited and at least partially funded by supporters of fundamental change, are so inaccurate that it is hard to conclude other than that they have either deliberately misrepresented basic facts or are unable to conduct even cursory research before committing pen to paper.

Want to read more?

Register to access two of our subscriber-only articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the IAM experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

One of the advantages of IAM is that it is high quality and yet still accessible and relevant to the non-specialist chief executives and senior managers who don't know what they don't know about IP. It's an important contribution to the upward IP education of senior managers.

Ian Harvey
Board member
International Intellectual Property Strategists Association (INTIPSA)


Subscribe to receive access to the full range of premium business intelligence, insights and analysis, as well as our IP directories, guides and daily news.

Why subscribe?