This paper explores which patent policy should be applied to complementary innovations that are aggregated into broader technologies. I compare a setting in which complementary innovations must be bundled prior to patenting, with a second setting in which they can be patented separately. The first setting can improve static efficiency by avoiding the costs resulting from the scattering of complementary patents. But it also limits the disclosure of small innovations, which may lead to inefficient R&D cost duplications. A model capturing these effects shows that patenting complementary innovations separately is not efficient when innovations can be developed rapidly. This result justifies the enforcement of a severe “inventive step” or “non-obviousness” requirement in sectors where complementary innovations are frequent.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number
hal-00397192_v1.
Length: Date of creation: Oct 2008 Date of revision: Publication status: Published, European Economic Review, 2008, 52, 7, 1125-1139 Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00397192_v1
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00397192/en/ Contact details of provider: Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (CCSD).
References listed on IDEAS 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.: