IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/che/ireepp/v9y2010i2p67-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patents and R&D: a Classroom Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Diduch

    (Mary Baldwin College)

Abstract

Public policy towards patents has assumed a robust positive relationship between the strength of patent protection and the level of innovative research effort even though economic theory and empirical evidence suggest that the impact of patents on research varies considerably by industry. This classroom experiment provides students with an introduction to two competing models of the impact of patents on R&D: the 'winner-take-all' model contains incentives for excessive research effort and the research effort and the 'knowledge spillover' model contains incentives for free riding. Class discussion explores potential changes to current patent policy and policy alternatives for stimulating R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Diduch, 2010. "Patents and R&D: a Classroom Experiment," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 9(2), pages 67-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:che:ireepp:v:9:y:2010:i:2:p:67-83
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/v9n2/diduch.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167.
    4. Dasgupta, Partha, 1988. "Patents, Priority and Imitation or, the Economics of Races and Waiting Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(389), pages 66-80, March.
    5. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    6. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    7. Levin, Richard C, 1986. "A New Look at the Patent System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 199-202, May.
    8. Sakakibara, Mariko & Branstetter, Lee, 2001. "Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 77-100, Spring.
    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. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    2. Engel, Christoph & Kleine, Marco, 2015. "Who is afraid of pirates? An experiment on the deterrence of innovation by imitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 20-33.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    2. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    3. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    4. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1999. "Markets for technology (why do we see them, why don't we see more of them and why we should care)," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6520, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    5. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    6. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    8. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Silvia Galli, 2006. "Patents and Research Tools in a Schumpeterian Growth Model with Sequential Innovation," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 96(6), pages 63-104, November-.
    11. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    12. Werner Hölzl, 2007. "Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and European IPR Policy," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 12(1), pages 71-82, May.
    13. Armin Mertens & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Intellectual property and fourth industrial revolution technologies: how the patent system is shaping the future in the data-driven economy," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 275-310, April.
    14. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    15. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    16. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2004. "The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law: An Economic Approach," Economics Discussion Papers 2851, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    17. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Hoang M. Luong & Mehmet Ugur, 2022. "Does intellectual property protection deliver economic benefits? A multi‐outcome meta‐regression analysis of the evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1477-1509, December.
    18. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_001 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Silvana Krasteva, 2014. "Imperfect Patent Protection and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 682-708, December.
    20. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    21. Eswaran, Mukesh & Gallini, Nancy, 2017. "Can Competition Extend the Golden Age of Antibiotics?," Microeconomics.ca working papers -2017-9, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 19 Oct 2017.

    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:che:ireepp:v:9:y:2010:i:2:p:67-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Martin Poulter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.