In knowledge based economies the nation's economic status depends on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information. The recent trend in the economic growth of nations is mainly determined by innovative technological know-how of the individuals. Intellectual property has gained attention in this era of knowledge. The vast amount of data generated through the application of intellectual assets is managed with the help of various in-silico tools. In recent days, the patent databases have gained importance due to the detailed information available on the granted patent and other details, such as, legal status of the patent applications, which are not available through any other literature search. This review paper attempts to describe different types of patent databases available, their unique features, strengths, weakness and their major purpose. This paper details the information on how to access a patent database, the relevance of patent information obtained from these databases in prior art search, patent analysis, and the drawbacks present in these patent databases.

This Article provocatively asserts that lawmakers should weaken patents significantly—by between 25% and 50%. The primary impetus for this conclusion is the underappreciated effects of new and emerging technologies, including three-dimensional printing, synthetic biology, and cloud computing. These and other technologies are rapidly decreasing the costs of each stage of the innovation cycle: from basic research, through inventing and prototyping, to marketing and distribution. The primary economic theories supporting patent law hold that inventors and innovators need patents to recoup the costs associated with research, inventing, and commercializing. Because new technologies have begun—and will continue—to dramatically decrease these costs, the case for weakening patents is ripe for analysis.

As it provides a firm foundation for advancing knowledge, a solid literature review is a critical feature of any academic investigation. Yet, there are several challenges in performing literature reviews including: i) lack of access to the literature because of costs, ii) fracturing of the literature into many sources, lack of access and comprehensive coverage in many databases and search engines, and iii) the use of proprietary software lock-in strategies for bibliographic software, which can make porting literature reviews between organizations cumbersome and costly. These challenges often result in poor quality literature reviews completed by a single researcher unfamiliar with the approaches to the same research in other sub-fields and static reviews that are often lost to the scientific community. In this paper, an open source approach will be expanded to the application of improving the quality of literature reviews by providing best practices. Although there are many types and goals of literature reviews, it is found that all of them can be improved using a tool chain of free and open source software (FOSS) and methods. Specifically, this paper will provide a clear framework for i) comprehensive searching and obtaining access to the literature, ii) the use of FOSS for all steps including browsing, bibliographic software, and writing and iii) documenting a literature review to encourage collaboration of a dynamic document that lives into the future. This approach solves the current challenges of literature reviews and provides benefits of lower labor and economic costs, improved researcher control, and increased potential for collaboration. Finally, the challenges of using this approach and methods to overcome them are reviewed and future work is described.

As a growing number of companies reject intellectual property (IP) monopoly-based business models to embrace libre product development of free and open source hardware and software, there is an urgent need to refurbish the instruments of university-corporate research partnerships. These partnerships generally use a proprietary standard research agreement (PSRA), which for historical reasons contains significant IP monopoly language and restrictions for both the company and the university. Such standard research agreements thus create an artificial barrier to innovation as both companies using a libre model and universities they wish to collaborate with must invest significantly to restructure the contracts. To solve this problem, this article provides a new Sponsored Libre Research Agreement (SLRA). The differences between the agreements are detailed. The advantages of using an SLRA are provided for any type of company and include: (1) minimizing research investments on reporting requirements; (2) reducing delays related to confidentiality and publication embargos; and (3) reducing both transaction and legal costs as well as research time losses associated with IP. Moving to libre agreements both speeds up and reduces costs for setting up collaborative research. Under the SLRA, university researchers can spend more time innovating for the same investment.

With the development and commercialization of the recyclebot (plastic extruders that fabricate 3-D printing filament from recycled or virgin materials) and various syringe pump designs for self-replicating rapid prototypers (RepRaps), the material selection available for consumers who produce products using 3-D printer operators is expanding rapidly. This paper provides an open-source algorithm for identifying prior art for 3-D printing materials. Specifically this paper provides a new approach for determining obviousness in this technology area. The potential ramifications on both innovation and patent law in the 3-D printing technological space are discussed.

The articles in this issue look at how the development and use of free and open source hardware (FOSH or simply “open hardware”) are changing the face of science, engineering, business, and law. Free and open source software (FOSS) has proven very successful and now dominates the development of software on a global scale. It is available in source code (open source) and can be used, studied, copied, modified, and redistributed either without restriction or with restrictions only to ensure that further recipients have the same open source rights. Similarly, FOSH provides the “code” for hardware—including the bill of materials, schematics, instructions, computer-aided designs, and other information needed to recreate a physical artifact. Use of FOSH can improve product innovation in a wide range of fields. In this issue authors from a variety of disciplines and work environments discuss how this open model of innovation will drive the future of engineering. First, Alicia Gibb, founder and executive director of the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) and director of the ATLAS1 Blow Things Up (BTU) Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, argues that hardware is the next step to open sourcing everything. She touches on intellectual property (IP) issues, cites the benefits of open source hardware, introduces and explains the role of OSHWA, and hints at the future of open hardware. The open source paradigm is already making deep inroads in the hardware space in 3D printing. With the development of the open source RepRap project (a 3D printer that can print itself) the cost of 3D printers has dropped to a point where nearly anyone can afford one for rapid prototyping and small batch manufacturing. Ben Malouf and Harris Kenny of Aleph Objects describe their company’s approach to the use of open hardware in every aspect of their business to create the popular Lulzbot 3D printer. Their primary product is open—and consistently wins one of the top spots in Make: Magazine’s annual 3D printer shootout, ahead of proprietary 3D printers from much larger companies with far greater resources. Lulzbot printers, and those of many other manufacturers, are rapidly increasing in sales as the number of free and open source 3D printable designs erupts on the Web, making distributed manufacturing a reality. In this context, law professor Lucas Osborn at the Campbell University School of Law takes us on a deep dive into how IP law will need to change in this new 3D printing era. After summarizing the basics of IP law and explaining why it was created, he discusses how it could both benefit and hinder 3D printing technology. His arguments will challenge readers independent of their views on patent law. For those with conventional IP leanings, he shows how IP law can hinder innovation. For those born in the Internet age, where sharing is second nature and little thought is given to licenses as long as the code is posted on Github, he offers some important lessons. He ends with a challenge for engineers to make more of an effort in helping form IP law that will benefit innovation. If these lessons on IP and open hardware replication with 3D printers are turned to experimental research in science and engineering, there is an important opportunity to radically reduce the costs of experimental research while improving it. In the next article I argue that by harnessing a scalable open source method, federal funding is spent just once for the development of scientific equipment and then a return on this investment (ROI) is realized by digital replication of scientific devices for only the costs of materials. With numerous examples I show that the ROI climbs into the thousands of percent while accelerating any research that the open paradigm touches. To harness this opportunity, I propose four straightforward and negative-net-cost policies to support FOSH development and improve access to scientific tools in the United States. The policies will directly save millions in research and STEM education expenditures, while providing researchers and students access to better equipment, which will promote advances in technology and concomitant benefits for the American economy. Thinking about the future and the changes needed to support this development in STEM education, AnnMarie Thomas and Deb Besser of the St. Thomas School of Engineering consider how engineers and engineering educators can use maker methods to introduce students to engineering and build their technological literacy. They show that the maker movement is closely tied to open hardware and sharing as well as the traits of successful engineers. Makerspaces and fabrication (fab) labs (what Gibb calls hackerspaces) are physical hubs of the maker culture. Although these trends are clearly important for the United States, this cultural change and open hardware ethos can have dramatic impacts in the developing world. Matthew Rogge, Melissa Menke, and William Hoyle of TechforTrade explain the potential for open source and 3D printing to produce many needed items in low-resource settings, where lack of infrastructure makes local production impractical and high tariffs, unreliable supply chains, and economic instability make importation costly. Saving 90 percent on medical or scientific tools is nice in my lab, for instance, but it literally saves lives in a developing world context. The issue concludes with an op-ed by Tom Callaway, a senior software engineer at Red Hat, Inc., an open source software company with revenue over $2 billion last year (up 15 percent year over year). What makes this business accomplishment so impressive is that all of the company’s software products are available for free. Although old ways of thinking demand that companies secure a monopoly and certainly not give away “intellectual property” for free, Red Hat’s success comes from offering its customers support, collaboration, control, and a high-quality product. Tom argues that the proven open source software mentality is porting to hardware, opening up incredible opportunities for humanity. He concludes, “open source and open innovation work…. They also empower society and make it possible to push the limits of what is possible. When the barriers to collaboration are lifted, people can accomplish incredible things.” As all of the articles show, open source tools in the hands of this and future generations of engineers will be incredible indeed.