IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecanpo/v54y2017icp26-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investor perception and business method patents: A natural experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Kimmel, Randall K.
  • Antenucci, Robert
  • Hasan, Shahriar

Abstract

The 1998 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group court case is largely responsible for opening the door on the issuance of business method patents, while the 2008, in re Bilski decision closed it (at least partially) once again. The result of the first decision was a significant increase in the number of patents issued and law suits filed for infringement. This paper is the first the authors are aware of to utilize these court cases as natural experiments to gauge investor belief regarding the utility of business method patents on publicly traded companies. We find that investor beliefs about the effect of business method patents on company value evolved between 1998 and 2008, as investors modified their expectations for the effects of the in re Bilski decision based on what actually occurred after the State Street decision. We also find that investor sentiment varied by industry subsector. Our findings offer insights into the ongoing debate over the utility of business method patents, which may inform managers, investors, and both statutory and regulatory policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimmel, Randall K. & Antenucci, Robert & Hasan, Shahriar, 2017. "Investor perception and business method patents: A natural experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-48.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecanpo:v:54:y:2017:i:c:p:26-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2017.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592615300709
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, August.
    2. Anderson, Ronald W & Harris, Christopher J, 1986. "A Model of Innovation with Application to New Financial Products," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 203-218, Suppl. No.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2003. "Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy," NBER Working Papers 9717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
    5. Hersch, Philip L, 1994. "The Effects of Resale Price Maintenance on Shareholder Wealth: The Consequences of Schwegmann," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 205-216, June.
    6. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1976. "Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 249-307, August.
    7. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 141-168, January.
    8. Bernard, Vl, 1987. "Cross-Sectional Dependence And Problems In Inference In Market-Based Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 1-48.
    9. James Bessen & Jennifer L. Ford & Michael J. Meurer, 2011. "The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls," Working Papers 1103, Research on Innovation.
    10. 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.
    11. Hall, Bronwyn H. & MacGarvie, Megan, 2010. "The private value of software patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    12. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 380-423.
    13. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Where Does "State Street" Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents, 1971 to 2000," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 901-930, April.
    14. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    15. George L. Mullin & Joseph C. Mullin & Wallace P. Mullin, 1995. "The Competitive Effects of Mergers: Stock Market Evidence from the U.S. Steel Dissolution Suit," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 314-330, Summer.
    16. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    17. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    18. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
    19. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    20. Tawil, Natalie, 1999. "Flow Control and Rent Capture in Solid Waste Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-201, March.
    21. Bhattacharyya, Sugato & Nanda, Vikram, 2000. "Client Discretion, Switching Costs, and Financial Innovation," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 1101-1127.
    22. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law - Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2475, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jan 2002.
    23. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law: Part II - Empirical Studies of Corporate Law," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2453, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Sep 2002.
    24. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    25. David Encaoua & Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martínez, 2006. "Patent Systems for Encouraging Innovation: Lessons from Economic Analysis," Post-Print halshs-00177614, HAL.
    26. Levin, Richard C, 1986. "A New Look at the Patent System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 199-202, May.
    27. Binder, John J, 1988. "The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Railroad Cartels," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 443-468, October.
    28. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    29. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Business method patent; Innovation; Policy; Intellectual property; Empirical study; Court case;

    JEL classification:

    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:eee:ecanpo:v:54:y:2017:i:c:p:26-48. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-analysis-and-policy .

    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.