European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 47–70 | Cite as

Linguistic justice in IP policies: evaluating the fairness of the language regime of the European Patent Office

Article

Abstract

Alternative intellectual property laws relating to the use of languages in IP organisations can result in an asymmetric distribution of costs of patenting between innovators. We present a framework for the characterisation and evaluation of the fairness of the language regime of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is currently based on three official languages: English, French and German. We estimate that the costs of access to patenting procedures borne by English-, French- or German-speaking applicants are at least 30 % lower than those borne by European applicants whose first language is not one of the current official languages of the EPO. In order to correct language-related cost asymmetries, we explore two possible alternative language regimes. In both cases, we introduce a centralised system of financial compensation that covers translation costs borne by European applicants whose first language is not one of the official languages of the EPO. In the first alternative, financial compensation is covered by savings on current translation costs at the granting stage. In the second alternative, the number of official languages is increased to five and financial compensation is funded by an increase in filing fee and by partial savings on translation costs at the granting stage. We show that both alternatives could substantially reduce language-related costs asymmetries among European applicants. In addition, we show that the five-language alternative would reduce the global costs of access to patenting procedures borne by all European applicants. Thus, more multilingualism can be cheaper than less multilingualism, provided that “implicit costs” are taken into account. We conclude discussing under which conditions the alternative language regimes proposed could have a positive impact on the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the EPO language regime.

Keywords

European Patent Office European patent Translation costs Fairness Patent information Language policy Linguistic Justice 

Abbreviations

CLIR

Cross-lingual information retrieval

EPC

European Patent Convention

EPO

European Patent Office

LA

London agreement

MT

Machine translation

PATLIB

Patent libraries

PCT

Patent cooperation treaty

SME

Small and medium enterprise

WIPO

World intellectual property organisation

IP

Intellectual property

JEL classification

H40 H89 K11 O30 O31 O34 O38 O39 O52 P48 Z18 Z19 

References

  1. Aragonés Lumeras, M. (2009). Estudio descriptivo multilingüe del resumen de patente: aspectos contextuales y retórico. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Archontopoulos, E., Guellec, D., Stevnsborg, N., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Van Zeebroeck, N. (2007). When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Information Economics and Policy, 19, 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, Roland. (2004). Study on the cost of patenting. Munich: Roland Berger Market Resarch.Google Scholar
  4. Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis. Concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Ceccagnoli, M., Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Licht, G., & Marian, M. (2005). Study on evaluating the knowledge economy what are patents actually worth? The value of patents for today’s economy and society. Final report for lot 1. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Combeau, J. (2007). La traduction des brevets: quand la technique rencontre le droit. Traduire, 212, 62–69.Google Scholar
  7. De Briey, L., & Van Parijs, P. (2002). La justice linguistique comme justice coopérative. Revue de philosophie économique, 5, 5–37.Google Scholar
  8. Doherty, S., & O’Brien, S. (2012) A user-based usability assessment of raw machine translated technical instructions. In Proceedings of the AMTA-2012: The Tenth Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. San Diego, CA, October 28–November 1, 2012, (pp. 6).Google Scholar
  9. EPO. (2010a). Annual report 2009. Munich: European Patent Office (EPO).Google Scholar
  10. EPO (2010b). Financial statements. Accounting period 2010. Munchen: European Patent Office (EPO).Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2011). Impact assessment. Accompanying document to the proposal for a Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. SEC(2011) 482/2. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Gazzola, M. (2011). The economic evaluation of efficiency and fairness in the management of multilingual communication: The case of patent offices. PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Geneva.Google Scholar
  13. Gazzola, M., & Grin, F. (2007). Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: Towards a general analytical framework. AILA [Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée] Review, 20, 87–105.Google Scholar
  14. Gourdin-Lamblin, A.-S. (2005). Le brevet communautaire: Entre fonctionnement efficace du marché interieur et diversité linguistique. Studia Universitatis Babes Bolyai—Iurisprudentia, 2, 65–77.Google Scholar
  15. Grin, F. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European charter for regional or minority languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grin, F., Sfreddo, C., & Vaillancourt, F. (2010). The economics of the multilingual workplace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe, B. (2007). The economics of the European patent system: IP policy for innovation and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Reichl, B., & Van Pottelsberghe, B. (2009). Patent validation at the country level—the role of fees and translation costs. Research Policy, 38, 1423–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houbert, F. (2002). Les brevets d’invention et leur traduction. Traduire, 193, 47–58.Google Scholar
  20. Jullion, M.-C. (Ed.). (2005). Linguistica e proprietà intellettuale. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  21. Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L., & Schmitz, A. (2004). The welfare economics of public policy: A practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Lüdi, G. (Ed.). (2010). Le plurilinguisme au travail entre la philosophie de l’entreprise, les représentations des acteurs et les pratiques quotidiennes (Acta Romanica Basiliensia, vol. 22) (Vol. 22, Acta Romanica Basiliensia). Basel: Universität Basel.Google Scholar
  23. Marlies, K. (2012). Automatische Übersetzung von Patenten. Ein Widerspruch in sich? MDÜ—Fachzeitschrift für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer, 5, 28–34.Google Scholar
  24. Pool, J. (1991). The official language problem. American Political Science Review, 25(2), 485–514.Google Scholar
  25. Van Pottelsberghe, B., & Danguy, J. (2009). Economic cost-benefit analysis of the community patent. Brussels: European Commission—DG Internal Market.Google Scholar
  26. Van Pottelsberghe, B., & François, D. (2009). The cost factor in patent systems. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade, 9, 329–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Pottelsberghe, B., & Mejer, M. (2010). The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe. European Journal of Law and Economics, 29, 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Zeebroeck, N., Pottelsberghe, Van., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Guellec, D. (2009). Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy, 38, 1006–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Volpe, A. (2011). Language policy evaluation for the European Union patent system: looking for a new strategy. Master dissertation, University of Geneva, Geneva.Google Scholar
  30. Whittington, D., & MacRae, D. J. (1986). The issue of standing in cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. WIPO (2008). Criteria for addition of languages of publication under the PCT. International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union) Patent Cooperation Treaty. Working Group, First Session Geneva, May 26 to 30, 2008. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Finanzwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche FakultätHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations