Runner-up patents: is monopoly inevitable?
AbstractExclusive patents sacrifice product competition to provide firms incentives to innovate. We characterize an alternative mechanism whereby later inventors are allowed to share the patent if they discover within a certain time period of the first inventor. These runner-up patents increase social welfare under very general conditions. Furthermore, we show that the time window during which later inventors can share the patent should become a new policy tool at the disposal of the designer. This instrument will be used in a socially optimal mix with the breadth and length of the patent and could allow sorting between more or less efficient firms.
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 Sciences Po in its series Sciences Po publications with number info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8gjo2i2i.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Scandinavian Journal od Economics, 2010, vol. 112, pp.417-441
Other versions of this item:
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.:
- 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.
- Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1996. "Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 249-65, September.
- Scotchmer, suzanne, 1998.
"The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property,"
Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics
qt2s5174q8, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
- Maurer, Stephen M & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2002. "The Independent Invention Defence in Intellectual Property," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 69(276), pages 535-47, November.
- Stephen M Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003. "The Independent Invention Defense in Intellectual Property," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000544, David K. Levine.
- Glenn C. Loury, 1976.
"Market Structure and Innovation,"
Discussion Papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science
256, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Szymanski, Stefan & Valletti, Tommaso M., 2005. "Incentive effects of second prizes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 467-481, June.
- Vincenzo Denicolo & Luigi A. Franzoni, 2010. "On the Winner-Take-All Principle in Innovation Races," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 8(5), pages 1133-1158, 09.
- Petra Moser, 2003.
"How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World Fairs,"
NBER Working Papers
9909, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Petra Moser, 2005. "How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1214-1236, September.
- Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela, 2001.
"The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 542-558, June.
- La Manna, Manfredi & Macleod, Ross & de Meza, David, 1989. "The case for permissive patents," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1427-1443, September.
- Hopenhayn, Hugo A & Mitchell, Matthew F, 2001. "Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 152-66, Spring.
- Shapiro, Carl, 2007.
"Patent Reform: Aligning Reward and Contribution,"
Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley
qt1qm754rc, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Emeric Henry, 2010.
"Promising the right prize,"
Sciences Po publications
7758, Sciences Po.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Spire @ Sciences Po Library).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.