In the context of patents, “more effective” includes approval, the bounds of the patent, and punishment for infringement—we clearly meet

However, one important question in this debate is: What is meant by “more effective” patents? One might think of several dimensions of “effectiveness” (or strength) of patents. Given a particular invention, and a particular set of claims, the first question is: How likely is something to get a patent? Many concerns raised in the debates about patent policy point to examples of low-level inventions that have received a patent, meaning that patents are protecting even small inventions (or possibly things that are not even inventions), and hence patents are strong, in the sense that they are protecting a wide range of inventions (Bessen and Meurer, 2008, Jaffe and Lerner, 2004).

A second dimension is how broadly those claims are interpreted. Patent claims describe the metes and bounds in technology space covered by the patent. The question is then: How close can a rival get to those claims as described without being accused of infringing? If those boundaries are wide (extending beyond the area directly claimed by the invention), then the patent can be seen as stronger or more effective. Comparing the US and Japan in the early 1990s, the US was seen as having more effective patents because the US had the doctrine of equivalents, while Japan did not (although Japan adopted this policy in 1998) (Cohen et al., 2002). Bessen and Meurer (2008) argue that unnecessarily broad interpretation of the boundaries around patents is one of the problems with the current system of overly strong patents (with uncertainty about the boundaries an additional problem).

Third, one could think of the extent to which anyone who encroaches on the boundary would be liable for infringement, and would be severely penalized (with large monetary judgments and strong injunctions) as a measure of how effective the patent is. Again, comparing the US and Japan, there was a strong sense in the 1980s and 1990s that the US courts were more likely to find for the patent owner, especially after the creation of the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, and were likely to award higher judgments, and so the US had more effective patents (Cohen et al., 2002).