IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecp/v53y2014i3-4p245-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing

Author

Listed:
  • Leonard F.S. Wang
  • Arijit Mukherjee

Abstract

type="main"> We show that the common wisdom suggesting higher investment in innovation under a stronger patent protection may not be true if the innovator can license its technology ex-post innovation. If the initial cost of production is high and the slope of the marginal cost of undertaking innovation is moderate, investment in innovation is maximised at a patent protection that is weaker than the strongest patent protection. Otherwise, strongest patent protection maximises investment in innovation. We also show that welfare is maximised neither at the strongest patent protection nor at the weakest patent protection but at an intermediate patent protection. Our results are important for patent policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecp:v:53:y:2014:i:3-4:p:245-254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8454.12030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diwan, Ishac & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Patents, appropriate technology, and North-South trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 27-47, February.
    2. Deardorff, Alan V, 1992. "Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 35-51, February.
    3. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    4. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2005. "Patents and R & D: The tournament effect," Discussion Papers 05-05, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    5. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 415-437, October.
    6. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2007. "Patents and patent policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 568-587, Winter.
    8. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    9. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    10. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    11. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    12. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1991. "Endogenous Product Cycles," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1214-1229, September.
    13. Arijit Mukherjee & Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Imitation, patent protection, and welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, October.
    14. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    15. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    16. Uday Sinha, 2006. "Patent Enforcement, Innovation and Welfare," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 211-241, September.
    17. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
    18. Debasmita Basak & Arijit Mukherjee, 2012. "Patent protection and innovation in a vertical structure," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 837-842.
    19. Aniruddha Bagchi & Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Licensing and Patent Protection," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(3), pages 2010-2016.
    20. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2006. "Patents and R&D with imitation and licensing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 196-201, November.
    21. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    22. Marjit, Sugata & Beladi, Hamid, 1998. "Product Versus Process Patents: A Theoretical Approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 193-199, April.
    23. Chowdhury, Prabal Roy, 2005. "Patents and R&D: The tournament effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 120-126, October.
    24. Lai, Edwin L. -C., 1998. "International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 133-153, February.
    25. Glass, Amy Jocelyn & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 387-410, March.
    26. Fosfuri, Andrea, 2000. "Patent protection, imitation and the mode of technology transfer," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 1129-1149, October.
    27. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1991. "Endogenous Product Cycles," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1214-1229, September.
    28. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    29. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    30. Taylor, M Scott, 1994. "TRIPs, Trade, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(2), pages 361-381, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tao Zhuang & Zhixia Zhou & Qingjun Li, 2021. "University‐industry‐government triple helix relationship and regional innovation efficiency in China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 349-370, March.
    2. Leandro M. Meller, 2022. "Patent Length and Breadth as Policy Instruments: A Systematic Review of Recent Contributions to the Theory of Optimal Patent Design," Working Papers 192, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    3. Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 78-93, March.

    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. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    2. Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 78-93, March.
    3. Arijit Mukherjee & Chiranjib Neogi, 2009. "Vertical technology transfer and the implications of patent protection," Discussion Papers 09/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    4. Arijit Mukherjee & Achintya Ray, 2007. "Patents, imitation and welfare," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 227-236.
    5. Yang, Xuebing, 2013. "Horizontal inventive step and international protection of intellectual property," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 338-355.
    6. Arijit Mukherjee & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2013. "Patent Protection, Southern Innovation and Welfare in a North–South Trade Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 248-273, April.
    7. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Chu, Angus, 2021. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: An Updated Survey," MPRA Paper 110839, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Maria Pluvia ZUNIGA & Emmanuel COMBE, 2002. "Introducing Patent Protection In The Pharmaceutical Sector:," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 16, pages 191-221.
    10. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    11. Chu, Angus C., 2009. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey," MPRA Paper 17342, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Stephen P. A. Brown & William C. Gruben, 1997. "Intellectual property rights and product effectiveness," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q IV, pages 15-20.
    13. Borota, Teodora, 2010. "Innovation and Imitation in a Model of North-South TradeRecent evidence on world trade patterns reveals North-South specialization across," Working Paper Series 2010:6, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    14. Hudson, John & Minea, Alexandru, 2013. "Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-78.
    15. Glass, Amy Jocelyn & Wu, Xiaodong, 2007. "Intellectual property rights and quality improvement," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 393-415, March.
    16. Segerstrom, Paul & Dinopoulos, Elias, 2003. "A Theory of North-South Trade and Globalization," CEPR Discussion Papers 4140, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    18. Evrin, Alperen, 2013. "International Specialization in Research & Development," MPRA Paper 62392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Arghya Ghosh & Jota Ishikawa, 2018. "Trade liberalization, absorptive capacity and the protection of intellectual property rights," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1020, November.
    20. Jie Li & Xiaohui Xu & Jing Lu, 2015. "Negotiation over Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a Mixed Market," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 759-775, November.

    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:bla:ausecp:v:53:y:2014:i:3-4:p:245-254. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0004-900X .

    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.