Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Forced Out of the Closet: The Impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the Timing of Patent Disclosure

Contents:

Author Info

  • Daniel K.N. Johnson
  • David Popp

Abstract

Beginning in November 2000, patent applications filed in the United States are disclosed after 18 months, rather than when the patent is granted. Using U.S. patent data from 1976-1996, we find that major inventions are most likely to be affected, as they take longer to go through the application process. We provide evidence that this change will result in faster knowledge diffusion, and conclude with a simulation of the law's potential effect on patent grants.

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.nber.org/papers/w8374.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 8374.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jul 2001
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Johnson, Daniel K. N. and David Popp. "Forced Out Of The Closet: The Impact Of The American Inventors Protection Act On The Timing Of Patent Disclosure," Rand Journal of Economics, 2003, v34(1,Spring), 96-112.
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:8374

Note: PR
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Email:
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Daniel Johnson & Kristina Lybecker, 2012. "Does Distance Matter Less Now? The Changing Role of Geography in Biotechnology Innovation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 21-35, February.
  2. Johannes Liegsalz & Stefan Wagner, 2011. "Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-11-06, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
  3. David Popp, 2004. "International Innovation and Diffusion of Air Pollution Control Technologies: The Effects of NOX and SO2 Regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," NBER Working Papers 10643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Vanessa OLTRA (GREThA UMR CNRS 5113) & René KEMP (University of Maastrich) & Frans P. de VRIES (University of Stirling), 2009. "Patents as a Measure for Eco-Innovation," Cahiers du GREThA 2009-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.
  5. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The Impact of the Distribution of R&D Expenses on Firms’ Motivations to Patent," Insper Working Papers wpe_140, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
  6. Johannes Koenen & Martin Peitz, 2011. "The Economics of Pending Patents," CESifo Working Paper Series 3657, CESifo Group Munich.
  7. David Popp, 2003. "Lessons from Patents: Using Patents To Measure Technological Change in Environmental Models," NBER Working Papers 9978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Aditi Mehta & Marc Rysman & Tim Simcoe, 2007. "Identifying the Age Profile of Patent Citations," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2007-021, Boston University - Department of Economics.
  9. Régibeau, Pierre & Rockett, Katharine, 2007. "Are More Important Patents Approved More Slowly and Should They Be?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6178, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. David Popp & Ted Juhl & Daniel K.N. Johnson, 2003. "Time in Purgatory: Determinants of the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," NBER Working Papers 9518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
  12. Josh Lerner & Julie Wulf, 2007. "Innovation and Incentives: Evidence from Corporate R&D," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 634-644, November.
  13. Shih-tse Lo & Dhanoos Sutthiphisal, 2009. "Does it Matter Who Has the Right to Patent: First-to-invent or First-to-file? Lessons From Canada," NBER Working Papers 14926, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

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:nbr:nberwo:8374. 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: ().

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.