Sequential innovation and the patent-antitrust conflict
I examine antitrust policy in a model of cumulative innovation, arguing that collusion between successive patentees (e.g. through patent pools or cross-licensing agreements) may be socially beneficial under certain circumstances, even if the patents involved are competing rather than complementary or blocking. Collusion stimulates investment in second-generation innovations, which is welfare-improving if their social returns exceed private returns. However, it discourages investment in first-generation innovations. Thus, for the pooling of subsequent patents to be beneficial, the non-appropriable returns from the second innovation must be large and it must be costly to achieve by comparison with the first. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 54 (2002)
Issue (Month): 4 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://oep.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:54:y:2002:i:4:p:649-668. 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: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.