IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/red/issued/23-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blocking Patents, Rent Protection and Economic Growth"

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Klein

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Yibai Yang

    (University of Macau)

Abstract

We develop a Schumpeterian growth model to analyze the interaction between patent policy and firms' internal strategies to capture value from innovations. We consider two dimensions of patent policy: backward protection against imitation and forward protection, also known as blocking patents, against subsequent innovation that builds on a patented technology. Incumbent patent holders endogenously invest resources to protect their monopoly rents by impeding market entry of innovative competitors. We show that patent policy impacts economic growth through its influence on both the ex ante R&D incentives of potential innovators and the post-innovation rent protection incentives of incumbent firms. Most importantly, our analysis formalizes a novel growth-promoting role of forward protection; by guaranteeing previous innovators a share of future innovators' profits, forward protection reduces the incentive to actively obstruct follow-on innovations. We identify conditions under which the selective use of forward protection can stimulate economic growth through this mechanism. (Copyright: Elsevier)

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Klein & Yibai Yang, 2024. "Blocking Patents, Rent Protection and Economic Growth"," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 52, pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:red:issued:23-26
    DOI: 10.1016/j.red.2023.11.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2023.11.003
    Download Restriction: Access to full texts is restricted to ScienceDirect subscribers and institutional members. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/ for details.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.red.2023.11.003?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincenzo Denicolò & Piercarlo Zanchettin, 2014. "What Causes Over‐investment in R&D in Endogenous Growth Models?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(581), pages 1192-1212, December.
    2. Cozzi, Guido & Giordani, Paolo E. & Zamparelli, Luca, 2007. "The refoundation of the symmetric equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 788-797, September.
    3. L. Kamran Bilir, 2014. "Patent Laws, Product Life-Cycle Lengths, and Multinational Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(7), pages 1979-2013, July.
    4. Ufuk Akcigit & Salomé Baslandze & Francesca Lotti, 2023. "Connecting to Power: Political Connections, Innovation, and Firm Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 529-564, March.
    5. Miles S. Kimball & John G. Fernald & Susanto Basu, 2006. "Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1418-1448, December.
    6. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    7. Daniel Garcia‐Macia & Chang‐Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2019. "How Destructive Is Innovation?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1507-1541, September.
    8. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    9. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    10. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fang & Yuichi Furukawa & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2019. "Innovation and Inequality in a Monetary Schumpeterian Model with Heterogeneous Households and Firms," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 34, pages 141-164, October.
    11. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    12. Klein, Michael A., 2022. "The reward and contract theories of patents in a model of endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, February.
    14. Dinopoulos, Elias & Grieben, Wolf-Heimo & Şener, Fuat, 2023. "A Policy Conundrum: Schumpeterian Growth or Job Creation?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. Grieben, Wolf-Heimo & Sener, Fuat, 2009. "Globalization, rent protection institutions, and going alone in freeing trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 1042-1065, November.
    16. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2015. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    19. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2014. "Sequential R&D and blocking patents in the dynamics of growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 183-219, June.
    20. Klein, Michael A., 2020. "Secrecy, the patent puzzle and endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    21. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi, 2018. "Effects of Patents versus R&D subsidies on Income Inequality," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 29, pages 68-84, July.
    22. Ted O'Donoghue & Josef Zweimueller, 2004. "Patents in a Model of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 81-123, March.
    23. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    24. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    25. Federico Huneeus & In Song Kim, 2021. "The Effects of Firms’ Lobbying on Resource Misallocation," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 920, Central Bank of Chile.
    26. Davis, Lewis S. & Şener, Fuat, 2012. "Private patent protection in the theory of Schumpeterian growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1446-1460.
    27. Arghya Ghosh & Jota Ishikawa, 2018. "Trade liberalization, absorptive capacity and the protection of intellectual property rights," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1020, November.
    28. Segerstrom, Paul S & Zolnierek, James M, 1999. "The R&D Incentives of Industry Leaders," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(3), pages 745-766, August.
    29. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    30. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2007. "Rent Protection as a Barrier to Innovation and Growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(2), pages 309-332, August.
    31. Angus Chu, 2009. "Effects of blocking patents on R&D: a quantitative DGE analysis," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 55-78, March.
    32. Appel, Ian & Farre-Mensa, Joan & Simintzi, Elena, 2019. "Patent trolls and startup employment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(3), pages 708-725.
    33. Lanjouw, Jean O & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 573-603, October.
    34. Keishun Suzuki & Shin Kishimoto, 2023. "Leading Patent Breadth, Endogenous Quality Choice, and Economic Growth," ISER Discussion Paper 1205, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    35. Yibai Yang, 2018. "On the Optimality of IPR Protection with Blocking Patents," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 27, pages 205-230, January.
    36. Ai-Ting Goh & Jacques Olivier, 2002. "Optimal Patent Protection in a Two-Sector Economy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1191-1214, November.
    37. Susanto Basu, 2019. "Are Price-Cost Markups Rising in the United States? A Discussion of the Evidence," NBER Working Papers 26057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa, 2013. "Patentability and Knowledge Spillovers of Basic R&D," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(4), pages 928-945, April.
    39. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    40. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fang & Yuichi Furukawa & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2019. "Innovation and Inequality in a Monetary Schumpeterian Model with Heterogeneous Households and Firms," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 34, pages 141-164, October.
    41. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa, 2013. "Patentability and Knowledge Spillovers of Basic R&D," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(4), pages 928-945, April.
    42. Paul Segerstrom & Elias Dinopoulos, 1999. "A Schumpeterian Model of Protection and Relative Wages," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 450-472, June.
    43. Deng, Yi, 2011. "A dynamic stochastic analysis of international patent application and renewal processes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 766-777.
    44. Akiyama, Taro & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2009. "Intellectual property rights and appropriability of innovation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 138-141, June.
    45. M. Scott Taylor, 1993. "TRIPS, Trade, and Technology Transfer," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 625-637, August.
    46. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 317-369.
    47. Susanto Basu, 2019. "Are Price-Cost Markups Rising in the United States? A Discussion of the Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    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. Klein, Michael A., 2022. "The reward and contract theories of patents in a model of endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Michael Klein & Fuat Sener, 2023. "Product Innovation, Diffusion and Endogenous Growth," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 48, pages 178-201, April.
    3. Lu, You-Xun, 2022. "Interactive effects of monetary policy and patent protection: The role of endogenous innovation size," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Sushanta Mallick & Pietro Peretto & Xilin Wang, 2021. "Dynamic effects of patent policy on innovation and inequality in a Schumpeterian economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1429-1465, June.
    5. Angus C. Chu, 2022. "Patent policy and economic growth: A survey," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(2), pages 237-254, March.
    6. Dinopoulos, Elias & Grieben, Wolf-Heimo & Şener, Fuat, 2023. "A Policy Conundrum: Schumpeterian Growth or Job Creation?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Yibai Yang, 2018. "On the Optimality of IPR Protection with Blocking Patents," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 27, pages 205-230, January.
    8. Lu, You-Xun & Lai, Ching-Chong, 2021. "Effects of patent policy on growth and inequality: A perspective of exogenous and endogenous quality improvements," MPRA Paper 111183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Hu, Mei-Ying & Lu, You-Xun & Lai, Ching-chong, 2023. "Patent term extensions and commercialization lags in the pharmaceutical industry: A growth-theoretic analysis," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fan & Shiyuan Pan & Mengbo Zhang, 2020. "Do Stronger Patents Stimulate or Stifle Innovation? The Crucial Role of Financial Development," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 52(5), pages 1305-1322, August.
    11. Chu, Angus, 2021. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: An Updated Survey," MPRA Paper 110839, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Lei Ji, 2016. "Patents, R&D subsidies, and endogenous market structure in a schumpeterian economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 809-825, January.
    13. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2013. "The struggle to survive in the R&D sector: Implications for innovation and growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 26-29.
    14. Klein, Michael A., 2020. "Secrecy, the patent puzzle and endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. FURUKAWA Yuichi & NIWA Sumiko, 2021. "Deflation and Declining Business Dynamism in a Cash-in-Advance Economy," Discussion papers 21058, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    16. Kiedaisch, Christian, 2015. "Intellectual property rights in a quality-ladder model with persistent leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 194-213.
    17. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2014. "Stage-dependent intellectual property rights," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 239-249.
    18. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2013. "Endogenous fertility and human capital in a Schumpeterian growth model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 181-202, January.
    19. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi, 2018. "Effects of Patents versus R&D subsidies on Income Inequality," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 29, pages 68-84, July.
    20. Chu, Angus & Liao, Chih-Hsing, 2023. "Optimal Patent Policy and Wealth Inequality in a Schumpeterian Economy," MPRA Paper 117209, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent policy; Blocking patents; Economic growth; Innovation; Intellectual property rights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth

    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:red:issued:23-26. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.