A Model Of Development Of Agricultural Biotechnological Innovations: Patent Policy Analysis
AbstractIn this paper, peculiarities of the process of development of agricultural biotechnological innovations are considered, in particular the distinction between R&D races for gene discoveries and subsequent competition for developing their marketable applications in the form of genetically modified (GM) crops, the results of which determine the payoffs of discovering a gene. A formal two-stage model is specified and analyzed with regard to how different patent protection regimes and other government policies affect firm's R&D strategies and the welfare realized from an innovation. We find that different policy measures affect the outcomes of the two stages of biotechnological innovation differently, which leaves some ambiguity as to which patent protection regimes might be strictly preferable. However, general direction of policy improvement is identified.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA with number 19802.
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1999. "The optimal life of a patent when the timing of innovation is stochastic," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 827-846, August.
- Green, J.R. & Scotchmer, S., 1993.
"On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1638, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
- Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro., 1989.
"Optimal Patent Length and Breadth,"
Economics Working Papers
89-102, University of California at Berkeley.
- Dietmar Harhoff & Pierre Régibeau & Katharine Rockett, 2001. "Some simple economics of GM food," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 263-299, October.
- Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Marks, Leonie A., 2000. "Innovation Dynamics And Optimal Licensing Strategies In The Agro-Biotechnology Industry," Proceedings:Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26013, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
- Ted O'Donoghue, 1998.
"A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 654-679, Winter.
- Ted O'Donoghue, 1997. "A Patentability Requirement For Sequential Innovation," Discussion Papers 1185, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Loury, Glenn C, 1979.
"Market Structure and Innovation,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410, August.
- Lee, Tom & Wilde, Louis L, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 429-36, March.
- Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Bjornson, Bruce, 1997. "Vertical And Horizontal Coordination In The Agro-Biotechnology Industry: Evidence And Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(01), July.
- Horowitz, Andrew W & Lai, Edwin L-C, 1996. "Patent Length and the Rate of Innovation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 785-801, November.
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer.
- Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990.
"How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Hayenga, Marvin L., 2000. "Structural Change In The Biotechnology And Seed Industrial Complex: Theory And Evidence," Proceedings:Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26026, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.