IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v10y2016i2p7-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robotics: Breakthrough Technologies, Innovation, Intellectual Property

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Keisner

    (Amazon)

  • Julio Raffo

    (World Intellectual Property Organization)

  • Sacha Wunsch-Vincent

    (World Intellectual Property Organization)

Abstract

Robotics technology and the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence are breakthrough innovations with significant growth prospects. They have the potential to disrupt existing socio-economic facets of everyday life. Yet few studies have analysed the development of robotics innovation. This paper closes this gap by analysing current developments in innovation in robotics; how it is diffused, and what role is played by intellectual property (IP). The paper argues that robotics clusters are mainly located in the US and Europe, despite a growing presence in South Korea and China. The robotics innovation ecosystem builds on cooperative networks of actors, including individuals, research institutions, and firms. Governments play a significant role in supporting robotics innovation through funding, military demand, and national robotics strategies. Robotics competitions and prizes provide for an important incentive to innovation. Patents are used to exclude third parties to secure freedom of operation, license technologies, and avoid litigation. The countries with the highest number of patent claims are Japan, China, South Korea, and the US. The growing stock of patents owned by universities and PROs, particularly in China, is noteworthy too. Automotive and electronics companies are still the largest patent filers, but medical technologies and the Internet are emerging as new actors in the field. Secrecy is often used as a tool to appropriate innovation. Copyright protection is relevant to robotics also, mainly for its role in protecting software. Finally, open-source robotics platforms are increasingly used in the early stages of the innovation process as they allow new actors in the robotics field to optimize their initial spending on innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Keisner & Julio Raffo & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2016. "Robotics: Breakthrough Technologies, Innovation, Intellectual Property," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 7-27.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:7-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2016/07/01/1115773433/1-Robotics-7-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    • Andrew Keisner & Julio Raffo & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2016. "Robotics: Breakthrough Technologies, Innovation, Intellectual Property," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 10(2 (eng)), pages 7-27.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Keisner & Julio Raffo & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2015. "Breakthrough technologies - Robotics, innovation and intellectual property," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 30, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    2. Kumaresan, Nageswaran & Miyazaki, Kumiko, 1999. "An integrated network approach to systems of innovation--the case of robotics in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 563-585, August.
    3. Frey, Carl Benedikt & Osborne, Michael A., 2017. "The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-280.
    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. Natalia Shmatko & Galina Volkova, 2020. "Bridging the Skill Gap in Robotics: Global and National Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, September.
    2. Zoltan Csefalvay & Petros Gkotsis, 2020. "Global race for robotisation - Looking at the entire robotisation chain," JRC Research Reports JRC121184, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Guerreiro, João & Tussyadiah, Iis, 2021. "Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 911-926.
    4. Klump, Rainer & Jurkat, Anne & Schneider, Florian, 2021. "Tracking the rise of robots: A survey of the IFR database and its applications," MPRA Paper 110390, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Egor Skvortcov & Ekaterina Skvortsova & Ivan Sandu & Grigory Iovlev, 2018. "Transition of Agriculture to Digital, Intellectual and Robotics Technologies," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 1014-1028.

    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. Benjamin David, 2015. "Computer technology and probable job destructions in Japan: an evaluation," EconomiX Working Papers 2015-28, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    2. Damioli, G. & Van Roy, V. & Vertesy, D. & Vivarelli, M., 2021. "May AI revolution be labour-friendly? Some micro evidence from the supply side," GLO Discussion Paper Series 823, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    3. Van Roy, Vincent & Vertesy, Daniel & Damioli, Giacomo, 2019. "AI and Robotics Innovation: a Sectoral and Geographical Mapping using Patent Data," GLO Discussion Paper Series 433, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. Piotr Tomasz Makowski & Yuya Kajikawa, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Papers 2103.02395, arXiv.org.
    5. Andrew Keisner & Julio Raffo & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2015. "Breakthrough technologies - Robotics, innovation and intellectual property," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 30, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    6. Damioli, Giacomo & Van Roy, Vincent & Vertesy, Daniel & Vivarelli, Marco, 2021. "Will the AI revolution be labour-friendly? Some micro evidence from the supply side," MERIT Working Papers 2021-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Makowski, Piotr Tomasz & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Wipo, 2015. "World Intellectual Property Report 2015 - Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2015:944, April.
    9. Giacomo Damioli & Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Vertesy & Marco Vivarelli, 2021. "Detecting the labour-friendly nature of AI product innovation," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0017, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    10. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Basso, Henrique S. & Jimeno, Juan F., 2021. "From secular stagnation to robocalypse? Implications of demographic and technological changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 833-847.
    12. Iftekhairul Islam & Fahad Shaon, 2020. "If the Prospect of Some Occupations Are Stagnating With Technological Advancement? A Task Attribute Approach to Detect Employment Vulnerability," Papers 2001.02783, arXiv.org.
    13. Ayhan, Fatih & Elal, Onuray, 2023. "The IMPACTS of technological change on employment: Evidence from OECD countries with panel data analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Caroline Lloyd & Jonathan Payne, 2021. "Fewer jobs, better jobs? An international comparative study of robots and ‘routine’ work in the public sector," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 109-124, March.
    15. Gilberto Santos & Jose Carlos Sá & Maria João Félix & Luís Barreto & Filipe Carvalho & Manuel Doiro & Kristína Zgodavová & Miladin Stefanović, 2021. "New Needed Quality Management Skills for Quality Managers 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Grinis, Inna, 2017. "The STEM requirements of "non-STEM" jobs: evidence from UK online vacancy postings and implications for skills & knowledge shortages," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85123, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. van den Broek, Tijs & van Veenstra, Anne Fleur, 2018. "Governance of big data collaborations: How to balance regulatory compliance and disruptive innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 330-338.
    18. Daniele Angelini, 2023. "Aging Population and Technology Adoption," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2023-01, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    19. Caitlin Allen Whitehead & Haroon Bhorat & Robert Hill & Tim Köhler & François Steenkamp, 2021. "The Potential Employment Implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies: The Case of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector," Working Papers 202106, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit.
    20. Liu, Shasha & Wu, Yuhuan & Kong, Gaowen, 2024. "Politics and Robots," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    robotics; robot; artificial intelligence; innovation; patent; trade secret; intellectual property; copyright;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • O35 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Social Innovation

    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:hig:fsight:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:7-27. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.