Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Sistemas de patentes para fomentar la innovación: Lecciones de análisis económico

Contents:

Author Info

  • David Encaoua
  • Dominique Guellec
  • Catalina Martínez

Abstract

La teoría económica, al considerar que las patentes son instrumentos de política pública para fomentar la innovación y la difusión de la tecnología, conduce principalmente a tres conclusiones. En primer lugar, las patentes no tienen por qué ser siempre el medio de protección más eficaz para que los inventores recuperen sus inversiones en I+D, sobre todo cuando la imitación es costosa y ser el primero en lanzar un producto al mercado genera ganancias importantes. En segundo lugar, los requisitos de novedad y altura inventiva para la concesión de patentes deberían aplicarse de forma estricta para evitar que se concedan patentes para invenciones de escaso valor social, que sólo aumentan el coste social del sistema de patentes. En tercer lugar, los parámetros de longitud (duración legal) y amplitud (ámbito de protección) de las patentes podrían utilizarse para incentivar el desarrollo de invenciones con alto valor social. Más allá de estas tres implicaciones, la teoría económica aboga asimismo por enfocar la política de patentes desde el punto de vista del diseño de mecanismos de incentivos: un sistema de patentes óptimo podría basarse en un menú con diferentes grados de protección, donde una mayor protección implicaría tarifas más elevadas, y donde los inventores podrían elegir por sí mismos el nivel de protección que deseen, pagando la tarifa correspondiente.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.ipp.csic.es/RePec/ipp/wpaper/15_Encaoua_Guellec_Martinez.pdf
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Adelheid Holl)
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC in its series Working Papers with number 1015.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1015

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.ipp.csic.es/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Maurer, Stephen M & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2002. "The Independent Invention Defence in Intellectual Property," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 69(276), pages 535-47, November.
  2. Helios Herrera & Enrique Schroth, 2003. "Profitable Innovation Without Patent Protection: The Case of Derivatives," Working Papers 0302, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
  3. Hellwig, Martin & Irmen, Andreas, 2001. "Endogenous Technical Change in a Competitive Economy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-39, November.
  4. Robert M. Hunt, 1999. "Nonobviousness and the incentive to innovate: an economic analysis of intellectual property reform," Working Papers 99-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
  5. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
  6. van Dijk, Theon, 1996. "Patent Height and Competition in Product Improvements," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 151-67, June.
  7. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
  8. Robert M. Hunt, 2002. "Patentability, industry structure, and innovation," Working Papers 01-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
  9. 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.
  10. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
  11. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
  12. Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro., 1989. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," Economics Working Papers 89-102, University of California at Berkeley.
  13. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
  14. Gallini, Nancy & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9wx2c2hz, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  15. Carmen Matutes & Pierre Regibeau & Katharine Rockett, 1996. "Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 60-83, Spring.
  16. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
  17. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. Aghion, Philippe & Harris, Christopher & Vickers, John, 1997. "Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 771-782, April.
  19. Kenneth Carow, 1999. "Evidence of Early-Mover Advantages in Underwriting Spreads," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 37-55, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Adelheid Holl).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.