Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents
AbstractWe present a model where an incumbent firm has a proprietary product whose technology consists of at least two components, one of which is patented while the other is kept secret. At the patent expiration date, an entrant firm will enter the market on the same technological footing as the incumbent if it is successful in duplicating, at certain costs, the secret component of the incumbent’s technology. Otherwise, it will enter the market with a production cost disadvantage. We show that under some conditions a broad scope of trade secret law is socially beneficial despite the innovator is over-rewarded.
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 University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 20672.
Date of creation: 14 Feb 2010
Date of revision:
knowledge spillovers; duplication costs; covenants not to compete; inevitable disclosure;
Other versions of this item:
- Ottoz, Elisabetta & Cugno, Franco, 2011. "Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 219-227.
- Ottoz Elisabetta & Cugno Franco, 2009. "Choosing the Scope of Trade Secret Law when Secrets Complement Patents," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 200911, University of Turin.
- O34 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property Rights
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-02-27 (All new papers)
- NEP-BEC-2010-02-27 (Business Economics)
- NEP-COM-2010-02-27 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-INO-2010-02-27 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2010-02-27 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-TID-2010-02-27 (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.:
- Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2008.
"Patent--Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms,"
American Law and Economics Review,
Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 142-158.
- Ottoz Elisabetta & Cugno Franco, 2007. "Patent-Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 200707, University of Turin.
- David D. Friedman & William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1991. "Some Economics of Trade Secret Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 61-72, Winter.
- Stephen M Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003.
"The Independent Invention Defense in Intellectual Property,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
618897000000000544, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990.
"Optimal Patent Length and Breadth,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
- Tuomas Takalo, 1998. "Innovation and imitation under imperfect patent protection," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 229-241, October.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990.
"How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
- Cugno Franco & Ottoz Elisabetta, 2006. "Trade Secret vs. Broad Patent: The Role of Licensing," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 209-221, September.
- Nisvan Erkal, 2004. "On the Interaction between Patent Policy and Trade Secret Policy," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(4), pages 427-35, December.
- Tandon, Pankaj, 1982. "Optimal Patents with Compulsory Licensing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(3), pages 470-86, June.
- Antonelli Cristiano, 2012. "Compulsory licensing: the foundations of an institutional innovation," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201207, University of Turin.
- Mario Coccia, 2012. "Path-breaking innovations for lung cancer: a revolution in clinical practice," CERIS Working Paper 201201, Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.