IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i10p1909-1921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework

Author

Listed:
  • Pénin, Julien
  • Wack, Jean-Pierre

Abstract

This paper proposes a unified conceptual framework to analyze the multiple role and consequences of patents in the case of biotechnology research tools. We argue that the knowledge/information and independent/complementary nature of research tools define heterogeneous frameworks in which the patent system plays different roles. In particular, using the analogy with the free-libre open source movement in software, we show that patents can promote open innovation by ensuring the freedom of some pieces of knowledge. A strong conclusion of the paper is therefore that, against common belief, an adequate use of the patent system may contribute to preserving freedom of access to upstream research tools within a framework that we call free-libre biotechnology.

Suggested Citation

  • Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:10:p:1909-1921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00160-1
    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. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
    2. Wesley M. Cohen & John P. Walsh, 2008. "Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 1-30, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Schrader, Stephan, 1991. "Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 153-170, April.
    4. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    5. Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "The open source movement: Key research questions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 819-826, May.
    6. Nicolas Carayol, 2004. "Academic incentives and research organization for patenting at a large French university," Post-Print hal-00279232, HAL.
    7. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    8. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
    9. Janusz A. Ordover, 1991. "A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 43-60, Winter.
    10. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer.
    11. Ash Amin & Patrick Cohendet, 2004. "Architectures of knowledge : Firms, capabilities, and communities," Post-Print hal-00279605, HAL.
    12. Antoine Bureth & Rachel Levy & Julien Pénin & Sandrine Wolff, 2005. "Strategic Reasons for Patenting: Between Exclusion and Coordination Rationales," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 95(5), pages 19-46, September.
    13. Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(3), pages 347-363, May.
    14. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    16. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    17. Nicolas Carayol, 2007. "Academic Incentives, Research Organization And Patenting At A Large French University," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 119-138.
    18. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    19. Amesse, Fernand & Cohendet, P., 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1459-1478, December.
    20. Stephen M Maurer & Arti Rai & Andrej Sali, 2004. "Finding Cures for Tropical Diseases: Is Open Source an Answer?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(3), pages 1-1, December.
    21. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
    22. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    23. Bureth, Antoine & Pénin, Julien, 2007. "Modular Innovations and Distributed Processes. The Case of Genetically Engineered Vaccines," European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, Lavoisier, vol. 20(2), pages 251-273.
    24. Ashish Arora & Andréa Fosfuri, 2000. "The Market for Technology in the Chemical Industry : Causes and Consequences," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 92(1), pages 317-334.
    25. Riggs, William & von Hippel, Eric, 1994. "Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 459-469, July.
    26. Dalle, Jean-Michel & Jullien, Nicolas, 2003. "'Libre' software: turning fads into institutions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-11, January.
    27. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, 2006. "Patents and data-sharing in public science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(6), pages 1013-1031, December.
    28. Pray, Carl E. & Naseem, Anwar, 2005. "Intellectual Property Rights on Research Tools: Incentives or Barriers to Innovation?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19554, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    29. 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.
    30. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    31. Antoine Bureth & Julien Pénin & Sandrine Wolff, 2006. "Entrepreneurship in biotechnology: The case of four start-ups in the Upper-Rhine Biovalley," Working Papers of BETA 2006-21, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    32. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cristina Rossi, 2002. "Why open source software can succeed," LEM Papers Series 2002/15, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    33. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    34. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    36. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    37. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2006. "Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) : lessons for intellectual property rights management in a knowledge-based economy," Working Papers halshs-00410781, HAL.
    38. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    39. Julien PENIN, 2005. "Open knowledge disclosure, incomplete information and collective innovations," Working Papers of BETA 2005-10, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    40. R. Mazzoleni & B. N. Sampat, 2002. "University patenting : an assessment of the causes and consequences of recent changes in strategies and practices," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 99(1), pages 233-248.
    41. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    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. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    2. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. Sebastian von Engelhardt, 2010. "Quality Competition or Quality Cooperation? License-Type and the Strategic Nature of Open Source vs. Closed Source Business Models," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-034, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Julien Pénin, 2008. "More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies," Working Papers of BETA 2008-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    6. Adenle, Ademola A. & Sowe, Sulayman K. & Parayil, Govindan & Aginam, Obijiofor, 2012. "Analysis of open source biotechnology in developing countries: An emerging framework for sustainable agriculture," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-269.
    7. Heikkinen, I.T.S. & Savin, H. & Partanen, J. & Seppälä, J. & Pearce, J.M., 2020. "Towards national policy for open source hardware research: The case of Finland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    9. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.

    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. Patrick Cohendet & Matthieu Farcot & Julien Pénin, 2009. "Intellectual property in a knowledge-based economy : Patents to include vs. patents to exclude," Working Papers of BETA 2009-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    4. 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.
    5. James Bessen, 2010. "Communicating Technical Knowledge," Working Papers 1001, Research on Innovation.
    6. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," 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 51-127, Elsevier.
    7. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    8. Öcalan-Özel, Sıla & Pénin, Julien, 2019. "Invention characteristics and the degree of exclusivity of university licenses: The case of two leading French research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1445-1457.
    9. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    10. Pénin, Julien, 2011. "Sur les conséquences du brevet d’invention dans la science : résultats d’une enquête auprès des inventeurs académiques français," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 87(2), pages 137-173, juin.
    11. Julien Pénin, 2008. "More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies," Working Papers of BETA 2008-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    13. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Julien Pénin, 2007. "Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview Of The Evidence And Economic Motivations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 326-347, April.
    17. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Erkal, Nisvan, 2005. "The decision to patent, cumulative innovation, and optimal policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 535-562, September.
    19. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    20. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).

    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:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:10:p:1909-1921. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.