IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/15004.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Intellectual Property and Creative Machines

In: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 4

Author

Listed:
  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse
  • Adam B. Jaffe
  • Joel Waldfogel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe & Joel Waldfogel, 2024. "Intellectual Property and Creative Machines," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 4, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:15004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c15004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans, 2024. "Copyright Policy Options for Generative Artificial Intelligence," NBER Working Papers 32106, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2008. "Patents and academic research: a state of the art," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6187, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Christian Peukert & Florian Abeillon & Jérémie Haese & Franziska Kaiser & Alexander Staub, 2024. "Strategic Behavior and AI Training Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 11099, CESifo.
    4. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    5. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2018. "Quality Predictability and the Welfare Benefits from New Products: Evidence from the Digitization of Recorded Music," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 492-524.
    6. Christian Peukert & Florian Abeillon & J'er'emie Haese & Franziska Kaiser & Alexander Staub, 2024. "Strategic Behavior and AI Training Data," Papers 2404.18445, arXiv.org.
    7. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2021. "Platforms, Power, and Promotion: Evidence from Spotify Playlists," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 653-691, September.
    8. Erik Brynjolfsson & Danielle Li & Lindsey Raymond, 2023. "Generative AI at Work," Papers 2304.11771, arXiv.org.
    9. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, December.
    10. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    11. Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2001. "Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the 19th-Century United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 39-44, May.
    12. Amil Merchant & Simon Batzner & Samuel S. Schoenholz & Muratahan Aykol & Gowoon Cheon & Ekin Dogus Cubuk, 2023. "Scaling deep learning for materials discovery," Nature, Nature, vol. 624(7990), pages 80-85, December.
    13. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    14. Liebowitz, S J, 1985. "Copying and Indirect Appropriability: Photocopying of Journals," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 945-957, October.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    16. Abhishek Nagaraj & Imke Reimers, 2023. "Digitization and the Market for Physical Works: Evidence from the Google Books Project," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 428-458, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Laurie Ciaramella & Catalina Martínez & Yann Ménière, 2017. "Tracking patent transfers in different European countries: methods and a first application to medical technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 817-850, August.
    3. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2016. "Does the market for ideas influence the rate and direction of innovative activity? Evidence from the medical device industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 447-465, March.
    4. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    5. Timo Fischer & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2011. "Debt Financing of High-growth Startups," DRUID Working Papers 11-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    6. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    8. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    9. Baron, Justus, 2020. "Counting standard contributions to measure the value of patent portfolios - A tale of apples and oranges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3).
    10. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in technology transfer: theory and empirics," Working Papers hal-03473787, HAL.
    11. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    12. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2016. "Complementarities in the search for innovation—Managing markets and relationships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2036-2053.
    13. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Darcy, Jacques & Krämer-Eis, Helmut & Guellec, Dominique & Debande, Olivier, 2009. "Financing technology transfer," EIB Papers 10/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    15. Peters, Bettina & Marks, Hannes & Trunschke, Markus & Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2023. "Schwerpunktstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 9-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    16. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie & Elisabeth Müller, 2010. "Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 899-925, June.
    17. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2009. "Patents, Thickets and the Financing of Early‐Stage Firms: Evidence from the Software Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 729-773, September.
    18. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    19. Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Roger Svensson, 2010. "The inventor’s role: was Schumpeter right?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 413-444, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:15004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.