Behavioral econ can’t be worthy of a Nobel prize, because if it were, someone would have won it already. -Someone at Chicago today, probably
— Greg Shill (@greg_shill) 9 ottobre 2017
Behavioral econ can’t be worthy of a Nobel prize, because if it were, someone would have won it already. -Someone at Chicago today, probably
— Greg Shill (@greg_shill) 9 ottobre 2017
Interesting. It would be interesting to see more on hindsight reasoning in patent law (which is surely connected to this blog post).
The Washington Post recently had an article about the number zero and how it took hundreds of years for people to finally decide to assign a symbol to mean nothing. Now, of course, the CAFC would say that it was obvious (with their hindsight reasoning). And, yet great minds did not figure this out for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.
Be interesting to see what economics has to say about hindsight reasoning.
Be interesting to see what history says about hindsight reasoning. I think it would be interesting to see how a historian would interpret the different opinions of the statutes of Lee at different times.
Richard Thaler and Daniel Kahnamen have won the Nobel prize (separately) for their work in behavioral economics.
Not sure why Malcolm’s (non-patent law) comment to a non-patent law thread was eliminated, but it took along with it my comment actually agreeing with him…
What does this thread have to do with patent law? I am just not seeing the angle.
University of Rochester graduate
Greg Shill, indeed.
Comments are closed.