 |
 |
In case anybody else is having this problem … I wasn't able to access the piece using the URL exactly as in Charles' email, but I could get to it by adding
/full at the end of the URL.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23762/full
Stephen Pearson
| Research Information Analyst | The University of Manchester Library | Red 1.7, Main Library
| The University of Manchester | Oxford Road | Manchester | M13 9PP | Tel +44 (0)161 275 7389 |
Research Services Blog:
www.manchester.ac.uk/library/research-plus
From: A bibliometrics discussion list for the Library and Research
Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 29 September 2017 14:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Short piece about patenting of bibliometric techniques
See:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23762
The full text of the piece is available for free, whether you subscribe to JASIST or not. It raises a general concern about the use of patents to stop bibliometrics researchers carrying out their analyses. My own take on this is:
a) the patent should never have been granted in the first place because it lacks novelty and is arguably obvious
b) it was issued in the USA and has not, apparently, been applied for anywhere else in the world
c) in my view, if applied for patent protection, it would not get approved by the UK Patent Office
d) in the USA, if someone used the patented technique and were threatened with patent infringement by the patent owners, the bibliometrics researcher would be justified in challenging the patent's validity
Nonetheless, this is a worrying development, which all those active in bibliometrics should keep an eye on
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim