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 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 not too restrictive conditions a broad scope of trade secret law is socially beneficial either the patent length is adjusted in order to grant the innovator the right reward or it is fixed and the innovator is overrewarded
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 of Turin in its series Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers with number 200911.
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2009
Date of revision:
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, 2010. "Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents," MPRA Paper 20672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- O34 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
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.:
- 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.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," CEPR Discussion Papers 392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Tuomas Takalo, 1998. "Innovation and imitation under imperfect patent protection," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 229-241, October.
- Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990.
"Optimal Patent Length and Breadth,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
- 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.
- Scotchmer, suzanne, 1998. "The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt2s5174q8, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
- Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
- Tandon, Pankaj, 1982. "Optimal Patents with Compulsory Licensing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(3), pages 470-86, June.
- Paul Belleflamme & Paul Bloch, 2013.
"Dynamic Protection of Innovations through Patents and Trade Secrets,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
4486, CESifo Group Munich.
- BELLELFLAMME, Paul & BLOCH , Francis & ,, 2013. "Dynamic protection of innovations through patents and trade secrets," CORE Discussion Papers 2013059, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- 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).
- 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.
- Neil M Kay, 2013. "QWERTY and the search for optimality," Working Papers 1324, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Piero Cavaleri) or (Marina Grazioli).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.