IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/atlecj/v27y1999i4p444-459.html

Trade-related intellectual property rights and product versus process innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Sharmila Vishwasrao

Abstract

The incentives of southern governments to protect process and product patents are examined in a game with endogenous research and development and licensing. Patent protection results in the licensing of cost-reducing process innovations to southern firms. By increasing competition, licensing provides an incentive for southern governments to protect process patents. However, optimal patent policy may involve restrictions in the form of licensing contracts. In the case of product innovations, licensing does not occur regardless of whether or not patents are protected. Thus, patent protection serves to reinforce monopoly power without increasing technology diffusion. Southern governments thus have a lower incentive to protect product patents. Copyright International Atlantic Economic Society 1999

Suggested Citation

  • Sharmila Vishwasrao, 1999. "Trade-related intellectual property rights and product versus process innovations," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 27(4), pages 444-459, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:27:y:1999:i:4:p:444-459
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02298340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02298340
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02298340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diwan, Ishac & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Patents, appropriate technology, and North-South trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 27-47, February.
    2. repec:bla:econom:v:59:y:1992:i:233:p:35-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    4. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    5. Rockett, Katharine, 1990. "The quality of licensed technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 559-574, December.
    6. Alison Butler, 1990. "The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights: what is at stake?," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Nov, pages 34-46.
    7. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    8. M. Scott Taylor, 1993. "TRIPS, Trade, and Technology Transfer," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 625-637, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 2007. "Royalties vs. fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 741-759, August.
    2. 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).
    3. Arijit Mukherjee & Aniruddha Bagchi, 2020. "Information Disclosure through Technology Licensing," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-8, September.
    4. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    5. Amy Glass & Kamal Saggi, 1999. "The Dynamic Impact of Internalization Advantage," Working Papers 99-04, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    7. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    8. Gaisford, James D. & Richardson, R. Stephen, 2000. "The TRIPS Disagreement: Should GATT Traditions Have Been Abandoned? Technical Annex," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 1(2), pages 1-19.
    9. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, May.
    10. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    11. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    12. Amy Jocelyn Glass & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Licensing versus direct investment: implications for economic growth," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 10, pages 227-249, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.
    14. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    15. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
    16. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00595493, HAL.
    17. Jie Li & Xiaohui Xu & Jing Lu, 2015. "Negotiation over Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a Mixed Market," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 759-775, November.
    18. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2010. "Patent Licensing from a High‐Cost Firm to a Low‐Cost Firm," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 384-395, September.
    19. Dapeng Cai & Jie Li, 2012. "Quid pro quo and the enforcement of intellectual property rights protection: A bargaining approach," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 755-772, December.
    20. Arijit Mukherjee, 2002. "Capacity Commitment and Licensing," Keele Economics Research Papers KERP 2002/05, Centre for Economic Research, Keele University.

    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:kap:atlecj:v:27:y:1999:i:4:p:444-459. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.