The passage moves from disagreement to diagnosis in its discussion of patent pools for emerging technologies. The initial interpretation is that combining patents in a pool always accelerates innovation by simplifying licensing. The objection is that pools can exclude substitutes or conceal weak patents. The central case reveals that manufacturers entered the market faster when essential patents had clear terms, but researchers avoided a pool that required licenses to unrelated technologies. The author treats the result concerning patent pools for emerging technologies as a clue to mechanism and scope. The evidence matters because coordination helped when the pool reduced transaction costs without expanding control beyond necessary rights. The author rejects the initial claim only in its absolute form: Patent pools can support diffusion of complex technologies, so long as membership and licensing remain limited, transparent, and open to scrutiny. The mechanism identified for patent pools for emerging technologies explains why superficially similar settings can produce different results.