Defensive Disclosure under Antitrust Enforcement
AbstractWe formulate a simple model of optimal defensive disclosure by a monopolist facinguncertain antitrust enforcement and test its implications using unique data on defensivedisclosures and patents by IBM during 1955-1989. Our results indicate that strongerantitrust enforcement leads to more defensive disclosure, that quality inventions aredisclosed defensively, and that defensive disclosure served as an alternative but lesssuccessful mechanism to patenting at IBM in appropriating returns from R&D.
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 Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 12-010/2.
Date of creation: 09 Feb 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl
Antitrust; Defensive Disclosure; Patent; IBM;
Other versions of this item:
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
- M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Business Administration - - - General
- O32 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
- O34 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property Rights
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-08-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2012-08-23 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-IND-2012-08-23 (Industrial Organization)
- NEP-INO-2012-08-23 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2012-08-23 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-LAW-2012-08-23 (Law & Economics)
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.:
- Ghosal, Vivek, 2007. "Regime Shift in Antitrust," MPRA Paper 5460, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- David Gill, 2004.
"Strategic Disclosure of Intermediate Research Results,"
Economics Series Working Papers
211, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- David Gill, 2008. "Strategic Disclosure of Intermediate Research Results," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 733-758, 09.
- Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000.
"Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not),"
NBER Working Papers
7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Wesley M Cohen & Richard R Nelson & John P Walsh, 2003. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not)," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000624, David K. Levine.
- James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, 2007.
"An Empirical Look at Software Patents,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 157-189, 03.
- Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2007.
"Antitrust in Innovative Industries,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1703-1730, December.
- Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1985. "Post-entry Competition in the Plain Paper Copier Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 15-19, May.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005.
"Exploring the Patent Explosion,"
The Journal of Technology Transfer,
Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 35-48, 01.
- Bronwyn Hall, 2004. "Exploring the patent explosion," ESRC Centre for Business Research - Working Papers wp291, ESRC Centre for Business Research.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 2004. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," NBER Working Papers 10605, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Posner, Richard A, 1970. "A Statistical Study of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 365-419, October.
- Josh Lerner, 1997. "An Empirical Exploration of a Technology Race," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(2), pages 228-247, Summer.
- Jay Pil Choi (ed.), 2006. "Recent Developments in Antitrust: Theory and Evidence," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262033569, June.
- Block, Michael Kent & Nold, Frederick Carl, 1981. "The Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(3), pages 429-45, June.
- Talia Bar, 2006. "Defensive Publications in an R&D Race," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 229-254, 03.
- James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
- Horstmann, Ignatius & MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1985. "Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 837-58, October.
- Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
- Peter Grindley & David C. Mowery & Brian Silverman, 1994. "SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons in the design of high-technology consortia," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 723-758.
- Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
- Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-28, Spring.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Antoine Maartens (+31 626 - 160 892)).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.