An Experiment on Protecting Intellectual Property
AbstractWe conduct a laboratory experiment to explore whether the protection of intellectual property (IP) incentivizes people to create non-rivalrous knowledge goods, foregoing the production of other rivalrous goods. In the contrasting treatment with no IP protection, participants are free to resell and remake non-rivalrous knowledge goods originally created by others. We find that creators reap substantial profits when IP is protected and that rampant pirating is not uncommon when there is no IP protection. But most importantly, we find that IP protection in and of itself is neither necessary nor sufficient for generating wealth from the discovery of knowledge goods.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Chapman University, Economic Science Institute in its series Working Papers with number 12-09.
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
intellectual property; experimental economics;
Other versions of this item:
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
- K39 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Other
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-05-02 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2012-05-02 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-INO-2012-05-02 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2012-05-02 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-KNM-2012-05-02 (Knowledge Management & Knowledge Economy)
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.:
- 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.
- Petra Moser, 2005.
"How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1214-1236, September.
- Petra Moser, 2003. "How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World Fairs," NBER Working Papers 9909, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2008.
"Against Intellectual Monopoly,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521879286, December.
- Sean Crockett & VernonL. Smith & BartJ. Wilson, 2009.
"Exchange and Specialisation as a Discovery Process,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(539), pages 1162-1188, 07.
- Sean Crockett & Vernon Smith & Bart Wilson, 2006. "Exchange and Specialization as a Discovery Process," Working Papers 1002, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised May 2006.
- Bart J. Wilson & Taylor Jaworski & Karl E. Schurter & Andrew Smyth, 2012.
"The Ecological and Civil Mainsprings of Property: An Experimental Economic History of Whalers' Rules of Capture,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 617-656, October.
- Bart J. Wilson & Taylor Jaworski & Karl Schurter & Andrew Smyth, 2010. "The Ecological and Civil Mainsprings of Property: An Experimental Economic History of Whalers’ Rules of Capture," Working Papers 10-12, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990.
"Optimal Patent Length and Breadth,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
- Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
- Josh Lerner, 2009. "The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 343-48, May.
- Palich, Leslie E. & Ray Bagby, D., 1995. "Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 425-438, November.
- Taylor Jaworski & Bart J. Wilson, 2009.
"Go West Young Man: Self-selection and Endogenous Property Rights,"
09-02, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
- Taylor Jaworski & Bart J. Wilson, 2013. "Go West Young Man: Self-Selection and Endogenous Property Rights," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 886-904, April.
- 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.
- Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2000. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," NBER Working Papers 7851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kimbrough, Erik O. & Smith, Vernon L. & Wilson, Bart J., 2010. "Exchange, theft, and the social formation of property," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 206-229, June.
- Bettina Klose & Dan Kovenock J., 2012.
"Extremism Drives Out Moderation,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
3804, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Megan Luetje).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.