IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v56y2020i4d10.1007_s11151-020-09759-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface

Author

Listed:
  • Roger D. Blair

    (University of Florida
    University of Florida College of Law)

Abstract

There is a tension between the antitrust laws and the intellectual property (IP) laws. Both aim to promote social welfare, but their focus differs. By and large, antitrust law aims to promote competition and static welfare. In contrast, IP law permits static welfare losses in exchange for dynamic welfare gains. Thus, there is a tradeoff between static and dynamic welfare considerations. This tradeoff leads to a natural tension between IP law and antitrust policy. Implicitly, we believe that the benefits of long-term progress outweigh the short-run welfare losses that are due to the misallocation of resources. This can be seen in our Special Issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger D. Blair, 2020. "The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 557-561, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:56:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11151-020-09759-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-020-09759-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-020-09759-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-020-09759-x?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. Kevin A. Bryan & Erik Hovenkamp, 2020. "Antitrust Limits on Startup Acquisitions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 615-636, June.
    2. Thomas J. Miceli, 2020. "Trading in Information: On the Unlikely Correspondence Between Patents and Blackmail Law," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 637-650, June.
    3. Keith N. Hylton & Wendy Xu, 2020. "Error Costs, Ratio Tests, and Patent Antitrust Law," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 563-591, June.
    4. Steffen Juranek & Thomas Quan & John L. Turner, 2020. "Patents, Litigation Strategy and Antitrust in Innovative Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 667-696, June.
    5. Steffen Juranek & Thomas Quan & John L. Turner, 0. "Patents, Litigation Strategy and Antitrust in Innovative Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 0, pages 1-30.
    6. 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.
    7. Roger D. Blair & Anita N. Walsh, 2020. "Method-of-Use Patents, Appropriability, and Antitrust Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 651-666, June.
    8. Jorge Lemus & Emil Temnyalov, 2020. "Pay-for-Delay with Follow-On Products," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 697-714, June.
    9. Keith N. Hylton & Wendy Xu, 0. "Error Costs, Ratio Tests, and Patent Antitrust Law," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 0, pages 1-29.
    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. Juan Manuel Sanchez‐Cartas & Gonzalo León, 2021. "Multisided Platforms And Markets: A Survey Of The Theoretical Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 452-487, April.

    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. 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).
    2. Gugler, Klaus & Szücs, Florian & Wohak, Ulrich, 2023. "Start-up Acquisitions, Venture Capital and Innovation: A Comparative Study of Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 340, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    3. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    4. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Dirk Czarnitzki & Hanna Hottenrott & Susanne Thorwarth, 2011. "Industrial research versus development investment: the implications of financial constraints," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(3), pages 527-544.
    6. Ali-Yrkkö, Jyrki, 2004. "Impact of Public R&D Financing on Private R&D - Does Financial Constraint Matter?," Discussion Papers 943, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Jarle Moen, 2005. "Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-114, January.
    8. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    9. Persson, Bo, 2008. "The Development of a New Swedish Innovation Policy A Historical Institutional Approach," Papers in Innovation Studies 2008/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    11. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    12. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    13. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    14. Daniel P. Gross & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2021. "The Economics of Crisis Innovation Policy: A Historical Perspective," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 346-350, May.
    15. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    16. Pal, Rupayan, 2010. "Technology adoption in a differentiated duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 128-136, June.
    17. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    18. Bakari, Sayef, 2021. "Do researchers affect economic growth?," MPRA Paper 108788, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Polemis, Michael & Tselekounis, Markos, 2019. "Does deregulation drive innovation intensity? Lessons learned from the OECD telecommunications sector," MPRA Paper 92770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.

    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:revind:v:56:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11151-020-09759-x. 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.