Big Banks and Business Method Patents
The banking industry and the patent system are longstanding American institutions whose histories date back to the founding of this country. Historically, however, the paths of these two institutions rarely crossed. Although financial firms have been increasing their innovative output for decades now, until recently they relied on trade secrecy, first mover advantages, and other business mechanisms to protect and monetize their intellectual property — not patents. Through a convergence of circumstances over the past several years, that pattern has changed. The shift began when the Federal Circuit decided that business methods — banks’ primary mode of innovation — are patentable subject matter. That decision triggered an increase in the number of business method patents issued by the PTO, and, correspondingly, a surge in patent infringement litigation targeting big banks. When the banks found little success in court, their powerful lobby persuaded Congress to include a special carve out for financial patents in the America Invents Act — the comprehensive patent reform legislation enacted in 2011. Meanwhile, as the financial industry sought legislative favor to ward off future infringement suits, many of the big banks built substantial patent portfolios of their own. This Article explores this nascent relationship and considers some potential implications of growing bank involvement in our patent system. It suggests that the intersection of these institutions could yield some benefit, for example by improving the publicly available information regarding financial innovations. Yet, more pointedly, it warns of possible harms, especially if big banks use their political and economic power to disproportionately influence patent reform and innovation policy in the future.
Research on financial innovations: an interdisciplinary review
PurposeThe financial industry offers a unique setting to study innovations. Financial innovations have fueled the growth of economies, markets and societies. The financial industry has successfully become the breeding ground for innovative services, processes, business models and technologies. This study seeks to provide a holistic view of the literature on financial innovations, synthesize the research findings and offer future directions for research in light of three market developments that are disrupting the industry and opening up a new era for the financial services industry. Disruptions from within and outside the industry offer new generations of radically innovative services. Moreover, new generations of consumers differ from previous generations in their needs and wants and look for innovative ways to handle their financial needs. Finally, significant developments related to financial innovations have emerged in Asia and developing countries.Design/methodology/approachThis study systematically reviews the academic research literature on financial innovations in two phases. The first phase provides a quantitative review of 546 journal articles published between 1990 and 2018. In the second phase, the study synthesizes the extant research on financial innovations and maps them in five research areas: firms' introduction and adoption of FIs, financial innovation development, the outcomes of financial innovations, regulations and intellectual property, and consumers.FindingsThe analysis found that disciplines differ with regard to the employed research methodologies, the units of analysis, sources of data and the innovations they examined. A positive trend in the number of published articles during this period is observed. However, studies have primarily focused on the USA and Europe and less so on other parts of the world. The literature synthesis further identifies research gaps in the available research that highlight future research opportunities in light of the three market disruptions. The financial services industry is on the brink of a new era due to disruptions from within and outside the industry and the entrance of new generations of consumers. Moreover, the financial industry has successfully become the breeding ground for innovative services, processes and business models. Therefore, financial innovations offer promising opportunities for bridging the gap between research on product and service innovations.Research limitations/implicationsThe work provides a holistic and systematic overview of extant research on financial innovations and highlights future research opportunities in light of the three disruptive market developments. It helps researchers take advantage of the opportunities in studying financial innovations while maintaining industry relevance.Originality/valueThe study is the first to review and synthesize the academic research literature on financial innovations across marketing, finance and innovation disciplines. In addition, the study highlights three primary disruptive forces in the financial industry and identifies future research directions in light of these disruptive forces.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.