IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_6351.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Watzinger
  • Thomas Fackler
  • Markus Nagler
  • Monika Schnitzer

Abstract

We study the 1956 consent decree against the Bell System to investigate whether patents held by a dominant firm are harmful for innovation and if so, whether compulsory licensing can provide an effective remedy. The consent decree settled an antitrust lawsuit that charged Bell with having foreclosed the market for telecommunications equipment. The decree forced Bell to license all its existing patents royalty-free. The compulsory licensing increased follow-on innovation building on Bell patents by 17%. This effect is driven mainly by young and small companies. Yet, innovation increased only outside the telecommunications equipment industry, suggesting that compulsory licensing without structural remedies is ineffective in ending market foreclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Watzinger & Thomas Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2017. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," CESifo Working Paper Series 6351, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6351.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    2. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    3. David C. Mowery, 2011. "Federal Policy and the Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and Computer Software: A Policy Model for Climate Change R&D?," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 159-188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    5. Petra Moser & Alessandra Voena & Fabian Waldinger, 2014. "German Jewish ?migr?s and US Invention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3222-3255, October.
    6. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    7. Richard Nelson, 1962. "The Link Between Science and Invention: The Case of the Transistor," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 549-584, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Leonid Kogan & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Noah Stoffman, 2017. "Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(2), pages 665-712.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2007. "Antitrust in Innovative Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1703-1730, December.
    11. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    12. William R. Kerr, 2008. "Ethnic Scientific Communities and International Technology Diffusion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 518-537, August.
    13. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    14. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    15. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2015. "Patents Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 10968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Iacus, Stefano & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2009. "cem: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 30(i09).
    17. Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents Rights and Innovation by Small and Large Firms," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 54, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    18. Petra Moser & Alessandra Voena, 2012. "Compulsory Licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 396-427, February.
    19. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, February.
    20. Alberto Galasso, 2012. "Broad Cross‐License Negotiations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 873-911, December.
    21. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    22. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    24. Richard Nelson, 1962. "Introduction to "The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors"," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 1-16, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & C. J. Krizan, 2006. "Market Selection, Reallocation, and Restructuring in the U.S. Retail Trade Sector in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 748-758, November.
    26. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    27. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    28. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    29. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    30. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    31. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    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. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    2. Po-Hsuan Hsu & Hsiao-Hui Lee & Tong Zhou, 2022. "Patent Thickets, Stock Returns, and Conditional CAPM," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8343-8367, November.
    3. Rachel Griffith & John Van Reenen, 2021. "Product market competition, creative destruction and innovation," IFS Working Papers W21/43, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer & Martin Watzinger, 2022. "Fostering the Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Evidence from the Licensing of the Transistor Patents," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 838-866, December.
    5. Poege, Felix, 2022. "Competition and Innovation: The Breakup of IG Farben," IZA Discussion Papers 15517, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Reda Cherif & Fuad Hasanov & Philippe Aghion, 2023. "Fair and inclusive markets: Why dynamism matters," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(5), pages 686-701, November.
    7. Valentiny, Pál, 2024. "Mennyire innovatívak a Big Tech vállalatok? [How innovative are Big Tech companies?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 22-56.
    8. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    9. Tania Babina & Simcha Barkai & Jessica Jeffers & Ezra Karger & Ekaterina Volkova, 2023. "Antitrust Enforcement Increases Economic Activity," Working Papers 23-50, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    10. Sruthi Thatchenkery & Riitta Katila, 2023. "Innovation and profitability following antitrust intervention against a dominant platform: The wild, wild west?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 943-976, April.
    11. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Michael Klein & Yibai Yang, 2024. "Blocking Patents, Rent Protection and Economic Growth"," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 52, pages 1-20, April.
    13. Cabral, Luis, 2018. "Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: Dominant Firms and Innovation Incentives," CEPR Discussion Papers 13115, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Robin Mamrak, 2023. "Antitrust and (Foreign) Innovation: Evidence from the Xerox Case," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 396, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Kovács, Olivér, 2020. "Gazellák az iparpolitika tükrében, I [Gazelles and industrial policy, Part 1]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 54-87.
    16. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2017. "Technological Innovation and Inclusive Growth in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 11194, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Tania Babina & Simcha Barkai & Jessica Jeffers & Ezra Karger & Ekaterina Volkova, 2023. "Antitrust Enforcement Increases Economic Activity," NBER Working Papers 31597, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Oliver Falck, 2019. "Brauchen wir eine aktive europäische Industriepolitik?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(10), pages 12-15, May.
    20. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2021. "The Rise and Fall of German Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 14154, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2022. "The Breakup of the Bell System and its Impact on US Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 341, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.

    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. Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas A. & Nagler, Markus, 2017. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 4, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer & Martin Watzinger, 2022. "Fostering the Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Evidence from the Licensing of the Transistor Patents," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 838-866, December.
    3. Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas & Schnitzer, Monika, 2016. "Antitrust, Patents, and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Bell Labs," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145580, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," NBER Working Papers 21769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2015. "Patents Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 10968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents Rights and Innovation by Small and Large Firms," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 54, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    7. Kenneth G Huang & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(7), pages 1078-1102, September.
    8. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    9. Ufuk Akcigit & William Kerr, 2015. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovation, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-020, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 Mar 2015.
    10. Filippo Mezzanotti, 2021. "Roadblock to Innovation: The Role of Patent Litigation in Corporate R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7362-7390, December.
    11. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    12. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir, 2017. "Patent thickets, defensive patenting, and induced R&D: an empirical analysis of the costs and potential benefits of fragmentation in patent ownership," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 599-634, March.
    16. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul M. Rhode, 2016. "Patent Citations - An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn," Working Papers 16-05, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    20. Ufuk Akcigit & Salomé Baslandze & Francesca Lotti, 2023. "Connecting to Power: Political Connections, Innovation, and Firm Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 529-564, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovation; antitrust; intellectual property; compulsory licensing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_6351. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.