IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v69y2002i276p535-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Independent Invention Defence in Intellectual Property

Author

Listed:
  • Maurer, Stephen M
  • Scotchmer, Suzanne

Abstract

Patents differ from other forms of intellectual property in that independent invention is not a defence to infringement. We argue that the patent rule is inferior in any industry where the cost of independently inventing a product is not too much less than (no less than half) the inventor's cost. First, the threat of entry by independent invention would induce patent holders to license the technology, lowering the market price. Second, a defence of independent invention would reduce the wasteful duplication of R&D effort that occurs in patent races. In either case, the threat of independent invention creates a mechanism that limits patent-holders' profits to levels commensurate with their costs of R&D. Copyright 2002 by The London School of Economics and Political Science

Suggested Citation

  • 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 535-547, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:69:y:2002:i:276:p:535-47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=ecca&volume=69&issue=276&year=&part=null
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hopenhayn, H.A. & Mitchell, M.F., 1999. "Innovation Fertility and Patent Design," Papers 303, Minnesota - Center for Economic Research.
    2. Hopenhayn, Hugo A & Mitchell, Matthew F, 2001. "Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 152-166, Spring.
    3. 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.
    4. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    5. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    6. Hackner, Jonas, 2000. "A Note on Price and Quantity Competition in Differentiated Oligopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 233-239, August.
    7. Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques-François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    10. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-941, December.
    11. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Banerjee, Dyuti & Chatterjee, Ishita, 2010. "The impact of piracy on innovation in the presence of technological and market uncertainty," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 391-397, December.
    2. Carlos J Ponce, 2007. "More Secrecy...More Knowledge Disclosure? On Disclosure Outside of Patents," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000001600, David K. Levine.
    3. Emeric Henry & Carlos J. Ponce, 2008. "Waiting to Copy: On the Dynamics of the Market for Technology," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000030, David K. Levine.
    4. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Louise Keely, 2001. "Using Patents In Growth Models," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 449-492.
    7. Emeric Henry, 2010. "Runner-up Patents: Is Monopoly Inevitable?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(2), pages 417-440, June.
    8. Alessandra Fogli & Raquel Fernandez, 2009. "Culture: An Empirical Investigation of Beliefs, Work, and Fertility," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 146-177, January.
    9. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier.
    10. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2005. "IP and Market Size," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000836, David K. Levine.
    11. Carl Shapiro, 2006. "Prior User Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 92-96, May.
    12. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2004. "The independent invention defence in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(5), pages 1-7.
    13. David Encaoua & Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martínez, 2010. "Sistemas de patentes para fomentar la innovación: Lecciones de análisis económico," Working Papers 1015, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    14. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters,in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Emanuela Randon & Peter Simmons, 2017. "A top dog tale with preference complementarities," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 47-63, January.
    16. Ganslandt, Mattias, 2008. "Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy," Working Paper Series 726, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    17. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2005. "Intellectual property and market size," Staff Report 360, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8gjo2i2i is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Cugno, Franco & Ottoz, Elisabetta, 2006. "Static inefficiency of compulsory licensing: Quantity vs. price competition," POLIS Working Papers 73, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    20. Luigi Bonatti & Stefano Comino, 2011. "The Inefficiency of Patents when R&D Projects are Imperfectly Correlated and Imitation Takes Time," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(2), pages 327-342, June.
    21. Johnson, Justin P., 2014. "Defensive publishing by a leading firm," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 15-27.
    22. Ottoz Elisabetta & Cugno Franco, 2009. "Hybrid Licensing of Product Innovations," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 579-594, October.
    23. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2004:i:5:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Klaus Kultti & Tuomas Takalo & Juuso Toikka, 2006. "Simultaneous Model of Innovation, Secrecy, and Patent Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 82-86, May.
    25. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00743037 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:69:y:2002:i:276:p:535-47. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.