Prior User Rights
Keywords: patents, innovation, oligopoly JEL codes: L13, O31. ABSTRACT: Many inventions, great and small, are discovered independently at roughly the same time by two or more individuals or organizations. Famous examples include the light bulb (Edison and Swan), the telephone (Bell and Gray), and the integrated circuit (Kilby and Noyce). Such independent invention is common for minor technological improvements. How should property rights to an invention be defined and awarded in such cases? Patent law has struggled with this question for many years. The basic rule in the U.S. is that the patent is awarded to the first firm to invent; later independent inventors come up empty-handed. However, this basic system can create some peculiar results. Suppose that Firm A achieves an invention and files for a patent. Slightly later, but before the invention is made public, Firm B independently discovers the same invention. Firm A receives the patent and can even prevent Firm B from practicing its own invention. In legal terms, a party accused of patent infringement cannot defend itself by showing that it discovered the same invention independently. Would such an independent invention defense be desirable? Alternatively, suppose that Firm A achieves an invention, but decides not to file for a patent, perhaps because Firm A does not believe this invention is sufficiently novel and non-obvious to be patentable. Instead, Firm A uses the invention internally in its own operations as a trade secret. Later, Firm B independently discovers the same invention and files for a patent. Under current U.S. patent law, Firm B is awarded the patent because Firm A kept its invention secret.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 96 (2006)
Issue (Month): 2 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/|
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.aeaweb.org/subscribe.html|
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.:
- Cabral, Luis, 1994. "Bias in market R&D portfolios," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 533-547, December.
- Dasgupta, Partha & Maskin, Eric, 1987. "The Simple Economics of Research Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 581-95, September.
- 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.
- Gilbert, R. & Shapiro, C., 1988.
"Optimal Patent Length And Breadth,"
28, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl, 2004.
Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series
qt9xf1488p, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- F. M. Scherer, 2005. "Patents," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3903, 8.
- Vincenzo Denicolo & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2004. "Patents, Secrets, and the First-Inventor Defense," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 517-538, 09.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:96:y:2006:i:2:p:92-96. 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: (Jane Voros)or (Michael P. Albert)
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.