Do Patents Shield Disclosure or Assure Exclusivity When Transacting Technology?
AbstractPatents may assist trade in technology either by protecting buyers against the expropriation of the idea by third parties (the appropriation effect) or by enabling sellers to more frankly disclose the idea during the negotiation phase (the disclosure effect). We test for the presence of both these effects using quasi-experimental matching analysis on a novel dataset of 860 technology transaction negotiations. We identify the appropriation effect by comparing the probability of successful negotiations involving a granted patent with those involving a pending patent. Similarly, we identify the disclosure effect by comparing the probability of successful negotiations involving a pending patent with those involving no patent. We find evidence for the appropriation but not the disclosure effect: technology transaction negotiations involving a granted patent instead of a pending patent are 10 per cent more likely to be successfully completed (compared with an average completion rate of approximately 80 per cent).
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 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne in its series Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series with number wp2013n05.
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: Feb 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 2100
Fax: +61 3 8344 2111
Web page: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/
More information through EDIRC
Markets for technology; R&D; invention; patent; intellectual property; appropriability;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
- O34 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-03-16 (All new papers)
- NEP-CWA-2013-03-16 (Central & Western Asia)
- NEP-IND-2013-03-16 (Industrial Organization)
- NEP-INO-2013-03-16 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2013-03-16 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-TID-2013-03-16 (Technology & Industrial Dynamics)
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.:
- Teece, David J., 1993.
"Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,"
Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 112-113, April.
- Teece, David J., 1986. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 285-305, December.
- Spulber, Daniel F., 2008. "Innovation and international trade in technology," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 1-20, January.
- Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
- 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.
- Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
- Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1994. "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 190-209, March.
- Burhop, Carsten, 2010. "The Transfer of Patents in Imperial Germany," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(04), pages 921-939, December.
- Janusz A. Ordover, 1991. "A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 43-60, Winter.
- Jeremy R. Groves & William H. Rogers, 2011. "Effectiveness of RCA Institutions to Limit Local Externalities: Using Foreclosure Data to Test Covenant Effectiveness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 559-581.
- Paola Giuri & Alessandra Luzzi, 2005. "Commercialisation Strategies of Technology based European SMEs: Markets for Technology vs. Markets for Products," LEM Papers Series 2005/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
- Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2007.
"The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market For Ideas: Evidence From Patent Grant Delays,"
NBER Working Papers
13234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
- Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2011.
"Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding,"
Journal of the American Statistical Association,
American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 345-361.
- Stefano Maria IACUS & Gary KING & Giuseppe PORRO, 2009. "Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding," Departmental Working Papers 2009-51, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
- Stefano Iacus & Gary King & Giuseppe Porro, 2009. "Multivariate Matching Methods That are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1089, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
- James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2003. "Patents, Invalidity, and the Strategic Transmission of Enabling Information," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 151-178, 06.
- Gaétan Rassenfosse, 2012.
"How SMEs exploit their intellectual property assets: evidence from survey data,"
Small Business Economics,
Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 437-452, September.
- Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2010. "How SMEs Exploit Their Intellectual Property Assets: Evidence from Survey Data," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2010n20, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
- 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.
- Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(01), pages 1-29, May.
- Kani, Masayo & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2012. "Understanding the technology market for patents: New insights from a licensing survey of Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 226-235.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jenny Chen).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.