IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/netnom/v5y2003i1d10.1023_a1024950302713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Knut Blind

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research)

  • Jakob Edler

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research)

Abstract

In Europe, the future patenting of software-related inventions has been the subject of intensive discussions for some time, since there exists a strong dispute between the supporters of the U.S. practice of allowing patents in order to increase Europe's competitiveness and the opponents postulating negative impacts of patents on the software development process. This paper presents empirical results about the idiosyncrasies of the software development process and tests hypotheses on their impact on the likelihood of patents being obstacles for software dvelopment. The paper concludes with the identification of determinants for preferences concerning different possible patent regimes in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Knut Blind & Jakob Edler, 2003. "Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 71-96, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:netnom:v:5:y:2003:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1024950302713
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1024950302713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1024950302713
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1024950302713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Josh Lerner & Jean Triole, 2000. "The Simple Economics of Open Source," NBER Working Papers 7600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Don E Kash & William Kingston, 2001. "Patents in a world of complex technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 11-22, February.
    3. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    4. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Janusz A. Ordover, 1991. "A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 43-60, Winter.
    6. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 822-841, August.
    7. Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
    8. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1992. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 9-35, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Dam, Kenneth W, 1995. "Some Economic Considerations in the Intellectual Property Protection of Software," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 321-377, June.
    11. Nalley, Elliot Turner, 2000. "Intellectual property in computer programs," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 43-51.
    12. Michael Stolpe, 2000. "Protection Against Software Piracy: A Study Of Technology Adoption For The Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 25-52.
    13. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    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. Knut Blind & Rinaldo Evangelista & Jeremy Howells, 2010. "Knowledge Regimes and Intellectual Property Protection in Services: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Testing," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Jiaming Jiang & Rajeev K. Goel & Xingyuan Zhang, 2020. "IPR policies and determinants of membership in Standard Setting Organizations: a social network analysis," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 129-154, December.
    3. Rentocchini, Francesco, 2011. "Sources and characteristics of software patents in the European Union: Some empirical considerations," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 141-157, March.
    4. Thierry Warin & Jean-Philippe Bonardi, 2007. "Open Source Software Development, Innovation, and Coordination Costs," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0701, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.

    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. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    2. Frederick R. Warren-Boulton & Kenneth C. Baseman & Glenn A. Woroch, 1994. "The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection for Software: The Proper Role for Copyright," Industrial Organization 9411004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    4. Harabi, Najib, 1996. "Patents in Theory and Practice: Empirical Results from Switzerland," MPRA Paper 9606, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. den Hartigh, E. & Langerak, F. & Commandeur, H.R., 2002. "The Effects of Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms on Firm Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-46-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Markovich, Sarit & Moenius, Johannes, 2009. "Winning while losing: Competition dynamics in the presence of indirect network effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 346-357, May.
    8. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    9. Daniel P. Gross, 2020. "Collusive Investments in Technological Compatibility: Lessons from U.S. Railroads in the Late 19th Century," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5683-5700, December.
    10. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    12. Jiawei Chen & Ulrich Doraszelski & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2009. "Avoiding market dominance: product compatibility in markets with network effects," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 455-485, September.
    13. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Oesterreich, Thuy Duong & Teuteberg, Frank, 2019. "Behind the scenes: Understanding the socio-technical barriers to BIM adoption through the theoretical lens of information systems research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 413-431.
    15. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars & Tå̊g, Joacim, 2014. "Acquisitions, entry, and innovation in oligopolistic network industries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Hemant K. Bhargava & Vidyanand Choudhary, 2004. "Economics of an Information Intermediary with Aggregation Benefits," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 22-36, March.
    17. Fabio Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 301-322.
    18. 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.
    19. Deishin Lee & Haim Mendelson, 2007. "Adoption of Information Technology Under Network Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 395-413, December.
    20. Cristiano Antonelli, 2004. "The Governance of Localized Technological Knowledge and the Evolution of Intellectual Property Rights," Chapters, in: Enrico Colombatto (ed.), The Elgar Companion to the Economics of Property Rights, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:kap:netnom:v:5:y:2003:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1024950302713. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.