The Role of Passage Topic Knowledge in Typical and Poor Comprehenders' Recall

This dissertation examines the role of topic knowledge (TK) in comprehension among typical readers and those with Specifically Poor Comprehension (SPC), i.e., those who demonstrate deficits in understanding what they read despite adequate decoding. Previous studies of poor comprehension have focused on weaknesses in specific skills, such as word decoding and inferencing ability, but this dissertation examined a different factor: whether deficits in availability and use of TK underlie poor comprehension. It is well known that TK tends to facilitate comprehension among typical readers, but its interaction with working memory and word decoding is unclear, particularly among participants with deficits in these skills. Across several passages, we found that SPCs do in fact have less TK to assist their interpretation of a text. However, we found no evidence that deficits in working memory or word decoding ability make it difficult for children to benefit from their TK when they have it. Instead, children across the skill spectrum are able to draw upon TK to assist their interpretation of a passage. Because TK is difficult to assess and studies vary in methodology, another goal of this dissertation was to compare two methods for measuring it. Both approaches score responses to a concept question to assess TK, but in the first, a human rater assigns a score whereas in the second, a computer algorithm, Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA; Landauer & Dumais, 1997) assigns a score. We found similar results across both methods of assessing TK, suggesting that a continuous measure is not appreciably more sensitive to variations in knowledge than discrete human ratings. This study contributes to our understanding of how best to measure TK, the factors that moderate its relationship with recall, and its role in poor comprehension. The findings suggest that teaching practices that focus on expanding TK are likely to improve comprehension across readers with a variety of abilities.

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.