Expert Approaches to Mental Toughness Development in the High Risk Sport of Diving

Research focusing on mental toughness development and high risk sport is limited to one examination of elite gymnasts' perceptions. Coaches have acknowledged that mental toughness is important to performance success, while admitting they do not know effective development strategies. The aim of the current research is to address both these concerns by employing a grounded theory approach to ascertain elite diving coaches perceptions of mental toughness development and what mental toughness is. Seven diving coaches volunteered and were interviewed for an average of 49 minutes. They all coached an athlete that participated either in the world championships or Olympic games since 2008. Participants reported that mental toughness was the ability of a diver to perform a movement in a crucial moment that requires focus, extending beyond their comfort zone, overcoming fear, and never giving up. Mentaltoughness may not be the appropriate term due to its lack of multicultural sensitivity. Participants felt that dealing with adversity was something divers would have to constantly process. Mental toughness can be developed by the coach, the environment, or individual athlete. Unique attributes specific to divers were an awareness of self and a distinct level of knowing what the athlete was going to do. More research needs to be conducted to determine if these concepts can be generalized to other high risk sports. Future research could help establish a valid quantitative measure of mental toughness development.

Horizontal Innovation and Interface Patents

Scholars understandably devote a great deal of effort to studying how well patent law works to incentive the most important inventions. After all, these inventions form the foundation of our new technological age. But very little time is spent focusing on the other end of the spectrum, inventions that are no better than what the public already has. At first blush, studying such “horizontal” innovation seems pointless. But this inquiry actually reveals much about how patents can be used in unintended, and arguably, anticompetitive ways. This issue has roots in one unintuitive aspect of patent law. Despite the law’s goal of promoting innovation, patents can be obtained on inventions that are no better than existing technology. Such patents might appear worthless, but companies regularly obtain these patents to cover interfaces. That is because interface patents actually derive value from two distinct characteristics. First, they can have “innovation value” that is based on how much better the patentedinterface is than existing technology. Second, interface patents can also have “compatibility value.” In other words, the patented technology is often essential to make products operate (i.e. compatible) with a particular interface. In practical terms, this means that an interface patent that covers little or no meaningful advance can give a company the ability to extract rents and foreclose competition. This undesirable result is a consequence of how patent law has structured its remedies. For years patent law has implicitly awarded both innovation and compatibility values. Recently, the courts have taken a sensible first step and excluded compatibility value from reasonable royalty recoveries for standard essential patents. This Article argues that the law needs to go further and do the same for all essential interface patents. Additionally, patent law should reform the way it awards injunctions and lost profits to also exclude compatibility value. This proposal has two benefits. It would eliminate the incentives for wasteful patents on horizontal technology. Second, and more importantly, the value of all interfacepatents would be better aligned with the goals of the patent system.