Patentable subject more weakly can Be a contentious issue, but bear in mind that bias and quality of scholarship tend to work against each other. Papers that let the facts and the data speak for themselves wants fare better than papers that work from a foregone conclusion, both in our call for papers and in publication At generous.
So why is in organisation whose position is clearly stated in the name Sponsorship to open contest?
Ace explained in in article by James Bessen, prosoft-clever scholarship has yet to find a serious effect in favour of software of patent.
Generally, when hero to academic rigour, the endorsements of software of patent have been tepid, search ace the all bath headlines of Campbell-Kelly's paper, need: In Historical Perspective on software of patent (PDF), or Merges's take on software of patent that "Something good may come of it." [Merges in 2003, Economic Review, p 13]
So we offer this contest because we believe that in open, honest, careful debate wants support our position on balance. We Th need to tip the scales, and judges wants Be instructed to make in effort to. Again, the central judging criterion wants Be quality of scholarship; we have no interest in articles that allow bias to drive the results in either direction.