This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Decision to Patent, Cumulative Innovation,and Optimal Policy

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Nisvan Erkal

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Optimal patent breadth is an issue that is still being vigorously debated at both the theoretical and empirical levels. This paper analyzes optimal patent policy in the context of cumulative innovation in a model that endogenizes the patenting decisions of early innovators. In the theoretical literature on cumulative innovation, it is generally assumed that all innovations are patented. However, studies such as Cohen et al. (2000) and Levin et al. (1987) report that firms frequently rely on secrecy to protect their discoveries. Cumulative innovation implies that innovators may have significant incentives to keep their innovations secret to get a head start in subsequent R&D races. This paper shows that if innovators cannot rely on secrecy to protect their innovations, it is optimal to have relatively narrow patent protection. This happens if the government has a weak trade secret policy or if innovators cannot monitor the flow of their technological information. This is because when innovators cannot rely on secrecy to protect their innovations, they have increased incentives to patent them and it is not necessary for the government to give them extra incentives to patent. In the case when innovators always prefer secrecy over patenting, it becomes optimal to have a flexible antitrust policy rather than a flexible patent policy. Since non-disclosure reduces the investment incentives in the second R&D race, allowing collusive licensing agreements between competing innovators becomes optimal in order to stimulate investment in the second R&D race.

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 file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/SITE/research/workingpapers/wp03/877.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The University of Melbourne in its series Department of Economics - Working Papers Series with number 877.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mlb:wpaper:877

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, 5th Floor, Economics and Commerce Building, Victoria, 3010, Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 5289
Fax: +61 3 8344 6899
Email:
Web page: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Colemann Leong).

Related research
Keywords: cumulative innovation patenting decision patent policy antitrust policy

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
O38 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change - - - Government Policy
L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

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.:

  1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-51, Spring.
  2. 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.
  3. Priest, George L, 1977. "Cartels and Patent License Arrangements," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 309-77, October.
  4. Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  5. Mark Schankerman, 1998. "How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 77-107, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2001. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series 1010, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley. [Downloadable!]
  7. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(1987-3), pages 783-832. [Downloadable!]
  10. Nancy Gallini and Suzanne Scotchmer., 2001. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Economics Working Papers E01-303, University of California at Berkeley. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation, Yale University. [Downloadable!]
  12. Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques-François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, 03. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Lanjouw, Jean Olson, 1998. "Patent Protection in the Shadow of Infringement: Simulation Estimations of Patent Value," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 65(4), pages 671-710, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring The Social Return To R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  17. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Denicolo, Vincenzo & Zanchettin, Piercarlo, 2002. "How should forward patent protection be provided?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 801-827, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  22. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You may want to explore EconPapers, which displays the same data as IDEAS in a different way.

This page was last updated on 2008-11-16.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.