IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedaer/y2003iq4p1-14nv.88no.4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The uninvited guest: patents on Wall Street

Author

Listed:
  • Robert P. Merges

Abstract

For at least the past twenty-five years, financial services industries have been creating innovative products and services without the help of patents. The 1998 State Street Bank case changed all this, making patents freely available in these industries. Will patents help or hurt financial services innovation in the long run? This article sheds some light on this issue. ; Before the advent of patents, several ?appropriability? mechanisms protected financial services innovation: ?first mover? advantages, complementary or ?cospecific? assets, and trade secrecy. Evidence suggests that, in the immediate post-patent era, financial firms? first order of business was to protect these traditional appropriability practices. This attitude explains the early push to secure a ?prior use rights? defense to protect established firms against patent claims by upstart outsiders. From a historical perspective, this reaction to the ?patent threat? tracks that of other industries: in particular, nineteenth-century railroads and the software industry of the 1980s. ; In the end, the author argues, patents are not likely to cause any real and lasting problems. Although patents may increase the costs of interchanging innovative ideas, they may bring some unintended benefits as well?by fostering spin-offs and facilitating entry by start-ups, for example. Like random shocks in the natural world, the new patent regime provides a shakeup that could bring some good but unpredictable consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert P. Merges, 2003. "The uninvited guest: patents on Wall Street," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, vol. 88(Q4), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedaer:y:2003:i:q4:p:1-14:n:v.88no.4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/documents/research/publications/economic-review/2003/vol88no4_merges.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Stefan Wagner, 2009. "Patente in der europäischen Finanzindustrie: terra incognita?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 78(1), pages 156-166.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2009. "Business And Financial Method Patents, Innovation, And Policy," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 443-473, September.
    3. Hagedoorn, John & Lorenz-Orlean, Stefanie & Kranenburg, Hans, 2007. "Inter-firm technology transfer: Partnership-embedded licensing or standard licensing agreements?," MERIT Working Papers 2007-006, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. repec:bla:scotjp:v:56:y:2009:i:s1:p:443-473 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Eric Tymigne, 2011. "Financial stability, regulatory buffers and economic growth after the Great Recession: some regulatory implications," Chapters, in: Charles J. Whalen (ed.), Financial Instability and Economic Security after the Great Recession, chapter 6, pages 114-140, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    2. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    3. repec:osf:socarx:qzmf8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    5. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    7. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    8. Ting, Hsiu-I & Wang, Ming-Chun & Yang, J. Jimmy & Tuan, Kai-Wen, 2021. "Technical expert CEOs and corporate innovation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. 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).
    10. repec:cbh:journl:v:14:y:2015:i:3:p:88-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    12. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    13. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    14. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    15. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    16. Andreas Panagopoulos, 2004. "When Does Patent Protection Stimulate Innovation?," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 04/565, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    17. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    18. Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), 2014. "Intellectual Property for Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15464.
    19. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Antoine Schoen, 2019. "Worldwide IP coverage of patented inventions in large pharma firms: to what extent do the internationalisation of R&D and firm strategy matter?," Post-Print hal-01725229, HAL.
    21. R. Nahuis & H. van der Wiel, 2005. "How Should Europe’s ICT Ambitions look like? An Interpretative Review of the Facts," Working Papers 05-22, Utrecht School of Economics.
    22. Banri Ito & Katsunori Shirai, 2023. "Patent law harmonization and international trade," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 289-306, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:fip:fedaer:y:2003:i:q4:p:1-14:n:v.88no.4. 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: Meredith Rector (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbatus.html .

    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.