10:31:29	 From  James Zeitler  to  Vendi Pavic(Privately) : Hello again.
10:31:43	 From  Vendi Pavic  to  James Zeitler(Privately) : Hello! Glad to see you join
10:46:27	 From  Vendi Pavic : For future questions, please use the raise hand option and Janet will pause to answer them periodically through her presentation.
If you wish, you may also submit questions to the chat.
10:49:43	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : curious if you have you examined the famous case of  Fleischmann and Pons  "cold fusion"  
10:52:23	 From  Ellie Okada : Some ethical scientists retract papers voluntarily even if the results are reproducible and error free, because, they say, there may be some unknown risks. If an industry patent holder conducted follow-on research and tested enough, the retraction may not affect the results.  Does your formula reflect such an incidence?
10:54:25	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : so in the case of a paper retraction, do the authors ever attempt to end patent? 
10:57:27	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : ie. since as you stated, many patents are granted while papers have been retracted, can the AUTHOR/RESEARCHER take a step to rescind patent?
11:01:31	 From  James Zeitler : (1) How often does the patent application come after the paper retraction?  (2) It appears that the unsupported patent papers are cited less than the control group.  Di you try to match on citations?
11:02:33	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : Are there people working to change the patent system in regards to your findings
11:04:09	 From  Christian Chacua : Are you considering families that cover patents filed at different patent offices? Are they rejected at other patent offices? Do you have information on the International Search Authority? (The EPO is known to be more strict on the litterature review)
11:04:25	 From  Qingnan Xie :  how often the inventors are also the applicants? i.e. the related patent decisions is made by firms or persons?
11:08:35	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl  to  Vendi Pavic(Privately) : if <stephaniecheng@g.harvard.edu> joins zoom, please let her in. she is stuent of richard
11:08:55	 From  Vendi Pavic  to  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl(Privately) : Hi Jennifer, I have let her in!
11:09:22	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl  to  Vendi Pavic(Privately) : great thanks!
11:11:35	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : within the Patent Office, aside from the officers who are specialists in their field (biology, chemistry, physics, etc), what portion of officers are lawyers examining patents from this point of view of being fraudulent
11:16:49	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : has this pattern of 52% of patent applicants continuing to support/believe in their patents, changed over time? That is, has the tech & investment boom affected pattern of non-abandonment? Meaning that "belief/hope" becoming more persistent? 
11:25:23	 From  Qingnan Xie : are those retracted papers had some later related papers by the same authors that proves the patents are operable eventually

11:30:10	 From  James Zeitler : A little down in the weeds... Why a linear probability model rather than logit or other non-linear model?
11:42:45	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : is the 3/381 number (I think you cited) just now, possibly reflective of the fact that 99% of patent applications are non-substantive 
11:43:55	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : I think you just addressed my question ! 
11:49:10	 From  Galit Eizman : what is more common, this issue or declining quality patents which do work? its like h0 and h1 mistake
11:49:17	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : how much does patent thickets inhibit new research 
11:49:39	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : again, you just answered my question! 
11:49:44	 From  Ellie Okada : Under the current system, the prosecution from the applicants who are rejected seems to be the only way that the unsupported patent is invalidated.  Is there any other way under the current institution? Or what is the efficient way to avoid harms of unsupported patents?
11:50:13	 From  weiyangtham : would be interesting to see this extended to the work that “scite” is doing to measure whether a paper is supported/contradicted by other papers
11:53:11	 From  Vendi Pavic  to  weiyangtham(Privately) : After Janet answers this question, would you like to bring up this point aloud?
11:55:02	 From  weiyangtham  to  Vendi Pavic(Privately) : only just saw this but no worries, thanks!
11:56:03	 From  Jennifer Amadeo-Holl : thank you! 
11:56:05	 From  Ellie Okada : Thank you !
11:56:07	 From  Grace Li : Thank you!
11:56:25	 From  Peng Ge : Thank you!